National Politics 🟢 The Green Party

[EastSussexOx]

To address your points one by one
1) If the tenant has the money and could have purchased a house, why are they renting in the first place?
Currently it is impossible to pay for a deposit due to astronomical rents - if rents were controlled (as per first proposal) and tenants were offered reduced purchase prices under a right to buy scheme as proposed in point five - a greater proportion of tenants could afford the properties they lived in.

2) Where will the council get the money from to buy all of these houses? We're broke incase you missed that.
We are not broke - we are still 5/6 largest economy in the world - we are just getting more unequal with more wealth accumulating a the top due to political choices over the last 40 years. There are a wide range of green policies designed to address council finances from levying land value taxes and other wealth taxes on multi-millionaires and billionaires to equalising capital gains tax (I don't have an exhaustive list off the top of my head), but as quoted in this policy doc they would be looking to move towards a Land Value Tax levied on Owners, not Tenants. No Exceptions. Business Rates on AirBnBs/Short Lets. No Exceptions. Double taxation for empty properties. Put National Insurance on Private Rents. These would raise revenue to help support councils to pay for RTB.
For the subset of properties that neither tenants nor councils buy, these would return to the open market. Given we have a challenge of housing supply this would reduce or dampen down property prices which leads to point three...

3) I assume you don't own your own home then? Do you understand negative equity and what it would do to those that are remortgaging when the prices collapse.
I think this is a fair point. By the way I have a mortgage and have experienced negative equity when re-mortgaging - bought at peak in 2006 and mortgaged in 2010 during a brief slump in house prices and it did have a financial impact. I would be surprised if this policy led to the sorts of collapses that led to prices falling significantly so that the majority of people fell into negative equity, however definitely concede that any risks of defaulting mortgages should be looked at as part of a holistic housing policy and it feels like a gap that needs addressing. I think mortgage lending policy needs better regulation also (though this would also impact on house prices).
On balance though we cannot continue with a status quo that is currently leading to record levels of homelessness, including child homelessness as private rental costs are out of control - The average monthly rental price across the UK is £1,344 - before bills or council tax (much higher for larger properties - big enough for families or properties in the South East) which has led to record levels of homelessness. This feels like a much bigger social risk than the possibility of a small subset of households experiencing negative equity.

Apologies for calling you right wing (or making assumptions in general) - for some reason I thought you were a Reform supporter (and given there pro supporting tax evasion, corporate tax cuts, welfare cuts, council cuts and privatised NHS agenda sounds pretty right wing to me - before we get on to their views on minorities).

 

[tomoufc]

So can we conclude that some landlords aren't great, whereas there are some who are really good. Some tenants are respectful, pay on time, and are good people to deal with, where there are some others who are right shits.

Sure, if you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is a huge power inbalance between the two groups, created by the the relationship between them. My issue with landlords isn’t that they’re bad people and tenants are good people, but that owning property as a means of extracting wealth from others creates poverty.

 

[TheDukeOfBanburyshire]

I would genunely consider voting green , but I shant vote green until the time Middleton and his fellow fake greens are no longer councillors of any sort in the Oxon, Cherwell or Kidlington area

I hear you.

 

[Peterdev]

Sure, if you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is a huge power inbalance between the two groups, created by the the relationship between them. My issue with landlords isn’t that they’re bad people and tenants are good people, but that owning property as a mean of extracting wealth from others creates poverty.

How many landlords actually make money apart from rogue ones. Many are satisfied to make a modest income, and when the time comes to use their profit on the sale to help them in later life. Some people prefer savings, investments, antiques and collectibles. Some prefer to profit from property. God forbid them from seeking to do well in life.

 

[Marked Ox]

Surely voting green in a general election, which has national implications, is different to voting green in parish or District elections, which only have local implications. Shouldn't let the local NIMBY greens put you off voting for what is currently the only decent alternative to Labour (at least until Corbyn gets his Your Party up and running)

What if the candidate is one of the local NIMBY type from a Parish Council such as Ian Middleton?

 

[Stranger]

What if the candidate is one of the local NIMBY type from a Parish Council such as Ian Middleton?

Then you make your decision based on their suitability as a candidate in your opinion. Personally, if Middleton or one of his cronies (I almost said crones - oops) ever came near my constituency, I'd place my vote elsewhere. He is Green in name only

 

[Marked Ox]

Then you make your decision based on their suitability as a candidate in your opinion. Personally, if Middleton or one of his cronies (I almost said crones - oops) ever came near my constituency, I'd place my vote elsewhere. He is Green in name only

The problem is that IM isn't a rare phenomenon.

 

[Lost Marbles]

The problem is that IM isn't a rare phenomenon.

Of course every party has some, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Tory party doesn't have the largest and most vociferous selection of ball achingly tedious NIMBY's nationwide. Unless they've all defected to Reform.

 

[Osei Yaw]

How many landlords actually make money apart from rogue ones. Many are satisfied to make a modest income, and when the time comes to use their profit on the sale to help them in later life. Some people prefer savings, investments, antiques and collectibles. Some prefer to profit from property. God forbid them from seeking to do well in life.

I think I'll save my sympathy for first time buyers before I shed any tears for landlords who may only make a 'modest' profit on a house.

 

[Marked Ox]

Of course every party has some, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Tory party doesn't have the largest and most vociferous selection of ball achingly tedious NIMBY's nationwide. Unless they've all defected to Reform.

Undoubtedly every party does. However, Green Party national infrastructure seem totally indifferent to what these types are doing in the the Organisation's name even when it is against a significant National Policy or 'stretch the rules'.

Therefore, for me I can't see how the national part of the GP can be taken seriously as locally on the ground it is acting differently.

 

[Peterdev]

I think I'll save my sympathy for first time buyers before I shed any tears for landlords who may only make a 'modest' profit on a house.

I was a first time buyer once. As I couldn’t find a property in the area I lived I moved outside the area until my financial situation changed.
Whilst I have some sympathy for first time buyers I have some for landlords who have done everything right by their tenant then have face the prospect of extra taxes etc likely to be brought about by a partisan and vindictive chancellor who appears both incompetent and out of her depth

 

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[Stranger]

All that shows me is that Morgan is an ignorant bigot

 

[tomoufc]

All that shows me is that Morgan is an ignorant bigot

Completely agree - also one of the very few people to point out that the so-called 'trans debate' is a culture war distraction which suits the political priorities of the super rich. The wider interview said to me that PM didn't know what to do with this, as it really showed his agenda up.

 

[boogaloo]

All that shows me is that Morgan is an ignorant bigot

Listening to that video, Polanski was more interested in talking about the ever increasing inequality between the super-rich and poor, yet Piers Morgan seems to think the number one issue concerning the country is 'Can a woman have a todger'?

I mean where-ever you sit on the debate, is that really the number one issue that this country faces? Inequality, the NHS, education, immigration, cost of living, the economy - those are just five that I can of off the top of my head. Those are of far more pressing concern than whether a woman can have a tally whacker.

What is it Piers Morgan's obsession with 'Can a woman have a cock'? Maybe it's because he IS a cock!

 

[Carpy]

Listening to that video, Polanski was more interested in talking about the ever increasing inequality between the super-rich and poor, yet Piers Morgan seems to think the number one issue concerning the country is 'Can a woman have a todger'?

I mean where-ever you sit on the debate, is that really the number one issue that this country faces? Inequality, the NHS, education, immigration, cost of living, the economy - those are just five that I can of off the top of my head. Those are of far more pressing concern than whether a woman can have a tally whacker.

What is it Piers Morgan's obsession with 'Can a woman have a cock'? Maybe it's because he IS a cock!

I just look forward to him convincing Putin to give up his nukes, that should go well.

 

[tomoufc]

I just look forward to him convincing Putin to give up his nukes, that should go well.

Whereas everyone having nukes will be just fine

 

[Carpy]

Whereas everyone having nukes will be just fine

It's a great aspiration, sure, but I prefer politicians who can see the reality staring back at them ahead of their own ideology, something that Polanski demonstrates he can't do time and time again.

 

[EastSussexOx]

I just look forward to him convincing Putin to give up his nukes, that should go well.

Did you listen to the interview or just the hatchet headlines from the right wing press? - here it is in full
Basically, he said it would be the obligation of any prime minister to engage in talks with other world leaders, even if those talks ultimately and likely came to nothing - quick as a flash Sky put the headline under the "Polanski would undoubtedly negotiate with Putin".

All this shows is how desperate the billionaire owned media is to smear and misrepresent and try to discredit anyone who dares talking about redistributing some of the vast wealth accumulated by the very rich, while the rest of us have to deal with paying more for less as our pay is squeezed and our public services deteriorate.

 

[Carpy]

Did you listen to the interview or just the hatchet headlines from the right wing press? - here it is in full
Basically, he said it would be the obligation of any prime minister to engage in talks with other world leaders, even if those talks ultimately and likely came to nothing - quick as a flash Sky put the headline under the "Polanski would undoubtedly negotiate with Putin".

All this shows is how desperate the billionaire owned media is to smear and misrepresent and try to discredit anyone who dares talking about redistributing some of the vast wealth accumulated by the very rich, while the rest of us have to deal with paying more for less as our pay is squeezed and our public services deteriorate.

He literally questions the £15b we are currently spending on a nuclear deterrent and thinks it would be better spent on lifting the two child cap. He must have missed people trying to negotiate with Putin since 2014, that's gone well hasn't it?

I'm sorry if I can't take him seriously, but you can carry on drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[EastSussexOx]

He literally questions the £15b we are currently spending on a nuclear deterrent and thinks it would be better spent on lifting the two child cap. He must have missed people trying to negotiate with Putin since 2014, that's gone well hasn't it?

I'm sorry if I can't take him seriously, but you can carry on drinking the Kool-Aid.

As you say, his stance on Putin is pretty much that of all political leaders of Party's of any stripe over the last 10 years - so no need for a misleading sensationalist headline, the only politician that offers a different stance is Reform who have senior party figures who are actual Russian spies.

Agree that the nuclear deterrence and defence questions are too nuanced to be summarised in a soundbite - but there are a lot of folk spreading misinformation that is Green policy to leave NATO or unilaterally disarm - neither of which are true.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

As you say, his stance on Putin is pretty much that of all political leaders of Party's of any stripe over the last 10 years - so no need for a misleading sensationalist headline, the only politician that offers a different stance is Reform who have senior party figures who are actual Russian spies.

Agree that the nuclear deterrence and defence questions are too nuanced to be summarised in a soundbite - but there are a lot of folk spreading misinformation that is Green policy to leave NATO or unilaterally disarm - neither of which are true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Green policy to leave NATO before the Ukraine war?? They then changed their position, but it looks like Polanski is pushing for a dismantling of NATO again, so their about-turn seems to be a relatively short lived one. However I take your point that it isn't actually clear what their NATO position is.

As for nuclear disarmament, from what I can see on their website it says they would:

"Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil."

To me, that looks like a policy of unilateral disarmament.

 

[EastSussexOx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Green policy to leave NATO before the Ukraine war?? They then changed their position, but it looks like Polanski is pushing for a dismantling of NATO again, so their about-turn seems to be a relatively short lived one. However I take your point that it isn't actually clear what their NATO position is.

As for nuclear disarmament, from what I can see on their website it says they would:

"Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil."

To me, that looks like a policy of unilateral disarmament.

This is the currently policy position which touches on both NATO and nuclear disarmament:

PSD317 The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security. The Green Party supports the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks.

PSD318 The Green Party supports the development of NATO’s dialogue with non-member countries with a view to ensuring that diplomacy and practical cooperation take precedence over military action.

PSD319 The Green Party will seek the following reforms to NATO. Other security arrangements may be considered should such reforms become unattainable:

1. A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ nuclear weapons policy, while pursuing near term global nuclear disarmament, and fostering the same policies in non-NATO countries;
2. A greater focus on outreach and dialogue to support global peace-building, solidarity and connections, based on democratic and inclusive values;
3. A commitment to upholding human rights in all NATO’s actions and operations; although this should not be seen as a justification for unilateral military intervention;
4. An end to fixed minimum level of military spending by each member state to be replaced with a flexible level set by consensus that will reflect the current military and strategic landscapes;
5. A commitment to undertaking no out of area operations or military exercises, and to act solely in defence of member states;
6. A guarantee that abiding by International Treaties, Conventions and UN Resolutions shall always take precedence over other considerations in determining NATO’s actions;
7. A commitment to jointly discuss security concerns of third country neighbour states prior to extending NATO membership

This does not mean immediate unilateral disarmament (they couldn't do this while remaining in NATO) nor immediate withdrawal from NATO. More like a reform of the current NATO system and a policy that is responsive to changes in circumstances.
People often confuse their vision (how they would ideally like the world to be) with their policy - a big example of this is on open borders - which again is not Green Party Policy.

Personally, I am more invested in their domestic policy agenda (around taxation of wealth, raising capital gains tax and property taxes to restore our public services, improve our infrastructure, address the cost of living crisis, tackle poverty and reduce inequality, bring in a change to the voting system, building social housing and rent controls) while I feel more ambivalent about their foreign policy (other than, I think they are less likely to drag us into problematic wars or sanction the selling of arms to countries committing genocide) - ultimately in this globalised world, UK has a limited ability to influence foreign policy - particularly since Brexit and have to vote for the least worst option and a break from the last 45 years of neo-liberal dogma which have turned this country into a bit of shithole.

 

[tomoufc]

Unilateral disarmament would have no material effect on Britain's security, as Trident is reliant on US support to function. We have no independent nuclear arms. What we do have is a policy of spending billions of pounds on a weapons system designed to uphold US global hegemony. Why should we do this?

Funny how many of the people who claim to want their country back are happy for it to be on long term loan to the US.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

This is the currently policy position which touches on both NATO and nuclear disarmament:

PSD317 The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security. The Green Party supports the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks.

PSD318 The Green Party supports the development of NATO’s dialogue with non-member countries with a view to ensuring that diplomacy and practical cooperation take precedence over military action.

PSD319 The Green Party will seek the following reforms to NATO. Other security arrangements may be considered should such reforms become unattainable:

1. A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ nuclear weapons policy, while pursuing near term global nuclear disarmament, and fostering the same policies in non-NATO countries;
2. A greater focus on outreach and dialogue to support global peace-building, solidarity and connections, based on democratic and inclusive values;
3. A commitment to upholding human rights in all NATO’s actions and operations; although this should not be seen as a justification for unilateral military intervention;
4. An end to fixed minimum level of military spending by each member state to be replaced with a flexible level set by consensus that will reflect the current military and strategic landscapes;
5. A commitment to undertaking no out of area operations or military exercises, and to act solely in defence of member states;
6. A guarantee that abiding by International Treaties, Conventions and UN Resolutions shall always take precedence over other considerations in determining NATO’s actions;
7. A commitment to jointly discuss security concerns of third country neighbour states prior to extending NATO membership

This does not mean immediate unilateral disarmament (they couldn't do this while remaining in NATO) nor immediate withdrawal from NATO. More like a reform of the current NATO system and a policy that is responsive to changes in circumstances.
People often confuse their vision (how they would ideally like the world to be) with their policy - a big example of this is on open borders - which again is not Green Party Policy.

Personally, I am more invested in their domestic policy agenda (around taxation of wealth, raising capital gains tax and property taxes to restore our public services, improve our infrastructure, address the cost of living crisis, tackle poverty and reduce inequality, bring in a change to the voting system, building social housing and rent controls) while I feel more ambivalent about their foreign policy (other than, I think they are less likely to drag us into problematic wars or sanction the selling of arms to countries committing genocide) - ultimately in this globalised world, UK has a limited ability to influence foreign policy - particularly since Brexit and have to vote for the least worst option and a break from the last 45 years of neo-liberal dogma which have turned this country into a bit of shithole.

That's interesting that we've found different live sources for apparently different approaches to NATO and unilateral disarmament.

Not exactly clear what they're proposing to do is it.

 

[Essexyellows]

Personally, I am more invested in their domestic policy agenda (around taxation of wealth, raising capital gains tax and property taxes to restore our public services, improve our infrastructure, address the cost of living crisis, tackle poverty and reduce inequality, bring in a change to the voting system, building social housing and rent controls) while I feel more ambivalent about their foreign policy (other than, I think they are less likely to drag us into problematic wars or sanction the selling of arms to countries committing genocide) - ultimately in this globalised world, UK has a limited ability to influence foreign policy - particularly since Brexit and have to vote for the least worst option and a break from the last 45 years of neo-liberal dogma which have turned this country into a bit of shithole.

Thought Labour were going to do that bit?

As a "shocker" I`ll agree with nationalisation of gas,energy water. Also agree with subsidising public transport and electoral reform.

Unfortunately the good bits are far outweighed by the bonkers stuff.

 

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[EastSussexOx]

Not sure you can accuse her of hypocrisy or nymbyism when she houses refugees in her own home. She was complaining about the lack of local consultation and unsuitability of the accommodation and the health risks posed by overcrowdeding. I take it those criticising are in favour of mass housing of asylum seekers without taking to local councils, health services, social services and other agencies about how to properly manage the situation.

 

[Stranger]

Not sure you can accuse her of hypocrisy or nymbyism when she houses refugees in her own home. She was complaining about the lack of local consultation and unsuitability of the accommodation and the health risks posed by overcrowdeding. I take it those criticising are in favour of mass housing of asylum seekers without taking to local councils, health services, social services and other agencies about how to properly manage the situation.

It's much easier for people to repost ill-thought out tweets from those with an agenda than to look things up for yourself, potentially finding facts that don't agree with your prejudices