The Green Party Manifesto Explained
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 25. 06. 2024
- Sign up to Brilliant and you'll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription: brilliant.org/tldr/
Read the Full Manifesto here: greenparty.org.uk/about/our-m...
In this video, we dive into the Green Party's newly released manifesto, comparing it to other parties and exploring its potential impact on their current standing in the polls.
đ TikTok: / tldrnews
đĄ Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
0:00 Intro
0:50 Labour regulations
1:10 Public services
2:03 Nationalisation
2:27 Green policies
3:54 Tax
5:04 Constitution
5:34 Defence
6:05 EU
6:30 Will it help?
6:55 Sponsor
CORRECTION: At 1:02, we show some pay ratios on screen, which imply that CEOs at Tesco, Aviva and Vodafone get paid more than 300,000 times their employees. These are obviously incorrect, and the correct ratios are:
Tesco - 571:1
Aviva - 315:1
Vodafone - 213:1
Apologies for such a sloppy error, and thanks for watching!
Such a significant error that I would fix the video and re-upload it.
@@theSweedio It makes the green party and their general focus on redistributing existing wealth than growing more wealth look better to exaggerate how rich the highest earners are, though.
Think about how many people see this correction vs the original video
@TLDRnews Itâs not that obvious
Re-upload the video with the correct graphic.
@@User-he6zd no the point still stands, have you heard of the Grosvenor family? They have billions in assets and are making money from renting out all those properties.
Maybe you haven't heard of them since it's those types of people that like to shut up about their wealth while inflicting massive damage on the economy
I admire you guys for doing in-depth analysis of fringe parties who may only win one or two seats like the Greens, Reform, and the Tories.
Ngl that last bit made me chuckle. Thanks for that.
You're being a little bit too generous to the Tories
âand the Toriesâ đ
Hahahaha I wasn't expecting that ending đ
đđđ
One thing that annoys me about the Greens is their opposition to nuclear power. Thatâs the clear way towards reducing carbon emissions drastically and ditching nuclear would mean a greater reliance on worse sources of power.
Tbf to them, nuclear is very expensive and time-consuming to invest in, in comparison to renewables that is.
I know right?!
Have you looked at the cost of managing nuclear waste. It's insanely expensive. Most expensive form of energy production.
â@@MariamPassionfruitThe 2 options are relying on nuclear and renewables or relying on fossil fuels and renewables. All of the major European green parties are picking the 2nd one, and that's what makes them a joke
â@@MariamPassionfruit You know what they do, though?
Cover the baseload.
It's crazy that they're against nuclear energy and HS2
To be fair nuclear energy is much more expensive and time consuming than renewables and they were mainly upset with hs1 being so environmentally destructive
It is crazy. They dislike things like this because they have some environmental drawbacks on the surface yet are oblivious to the fact that the alternatives are WAY worse. Opposing HS2 means more roads and vehicle emissions. Opposing nuclear is mental because at this point is is just science denial. I think their idea of nuclear energy is based on the simpsons. Look at what the German greens Opposing nuclear expansion did, it led to more COAL which churns out greenhouse gases and is MORE RADIOACTIVE than nuclear power plant emissions.
It's perfromative environmentalism, nothing more
being against nuclear is tippical russian shill move!!!
They provably don't care about the climate
watching the left move away from nuclear has been astounding to watch
I consider myself left leaning on some issues. But my god the stance of some left-leaning people on nuclear denies reality.
Tbf they arent opposed to nuclear, they just recognise that itâs more expensive and time-consuming to invest in than renewables
ââ@@MariamPassionfruitlet's ignore the fact that doing so makes us dependent on China batteries and the government subsidies needed to make it "cheaper" I guess đ
Nuclear is so insanely expensive that it always needs massive subsidies from the government. Because otherwise the energy companies wouldn't even turn a profit with it.
So in effect it's just funneling our taxes to energy magnate pockets.
It's not even renewable.
And building new ones takes decades, waaaay too slow for the rapid decarbonisation we need
â@@MariamPassionfruitthats because it has been overregulated to death
That 10:1 pay ratio policy should be cutting through as a vote winner. CEO want another pay rise? 200k not enough for you? Then you need to pay all those on 20k more first.
That Tesco current example is an absolute disgrace. The same company that will plead for minimum wage not to increase because they will 'be forced' to increase prices. It's funny how the prices of products are only calculated by taking the wholesale price, transport costs and supermarket staff costs into account. They never claim prices of products are going to have to go up because Execs need to pay themselves an extra 100k, they just do it.
Britain would lose it's competitive advantage in a lot of high tech areas. Chip design firms, defense manufacturers, chemical companies, pharma companies etc.
@@userre85 You're telling me that one specific CEO makes so much more difference over another CEO PLUS several hundred more skilled employees? I call bullshit
@@userre85 Tesco CEO rewarded with a 4.44M pay rise after 13% increase in profits during a cost of living crisis. He should have been facing jail or a least a pay cut.
â@@userre85 That doesn't mean countries should CHOOSE to be uncivilized bc those companies are run by people who have no idea how economics works... Like the Greens aren't wrong for acting like adults. That's how legislators should be.
To be clear: giving junior doctors our 35% pay restoration (not a rise) all at once, would cost just over ÂŁ1bn once tax and national insurance is taken into account. The government has spent ÂŁ3bn fighting us.ÂŁ1bn for an economy of our size is simply a non-issue, in terms of money.
dont forget the 10 bn tories lost to fraud over the last few years
A ÂŁ3bn 1-off vs ÂŁ1bn/annum in perpetuity.
Iâm not saying itâs right, just highlighting that itâs still a lot cheaperâŠ
@@mjrc123 Hmm should we scrimp on healthcare practitioners though? Doesn't seem wise.
@@RichXVIII Answer: no we shouldnât.
It's just greed really. Doctors make insane amounts nowadays with locum work etc. pure greed from the doctors.
So what I have taken away from this video is that Vodaphone could get rid of their CEO and hire 400,000 more people. And Tesco could hire 800,000 more people.
Alternitively tesco could more than double every low paid employees salary and still have money left over.
"Sorry we can't give our lowest paid employees payrises because we need to increase high level corporate staff to an even more rediculous level and boast more record profits."
Piss take.
Indeed, I've been pointing this our for years while YT silences most of the comments. Tesco and other companies will also plead with government not to increase minimum wage because it will mean they have to increase prices. The whole myth that pay increases fuel inflation. Bosses of companies never factor in their own salary or bonuses when calculating prices though, it's like a bad pitch on Dragon Den. It's only ever minimum wage workers salaries that fuel inflation, while the bosses give themselves (Tesco) 4.44M pay rises.
@@lastlast2078 or it was a mistake in the video which they've admitted to. How can't you engage even a single brain cell to notice that those numbers were obviously incorrect
You're a complete moron if you think those numbers are correct. Minimum wage annually is around 24k and according to these numbers Tesco CEO would take home nearly 20 billion a year which isn't the case đđđ. How can people be this illiterate lol
Check that they made a correction. Itâs in the mid-hundreds
Yes but that would leave 400,000 people in Tesco stores with no work to do and no one for you to moan at when someone gets salmonella from one of their products!
Watched all the videos on every parties manifestos and I have still no idea who to vote for just know I would never vote Tory or Reform.đ€Š
I'd rather vote green however LD have the majority in my area so they have my vote
â@pignbird4007 don't vote because you thinks it's the majority please
They should keep nuclear energy as part of their manifesto. Nuclear is an excellent source of clean, safe energy. France's nuclear power accounts for ~70% of electricity generated and they're in the process of building 6 more reactors on top of the 53 currently in use.
I agree. Esspecially With modern reactors, they are not only so safe as to be incapable of any meltdown, let alone a chernobl style one (that was already a worst case scenario back when plant safety was a fraction of modern times) they actually produce less carcinogenic waste than coal based plants, with said waste being way easier to safely store and dispose of than the stuff from coal plants. And thats before considering that certain modern reactors can actually eat that waste anyway, turning it into a tiny pile of far less radioactive waste whilst producing energy from it, further simplifying the disposal of it.
I really do agree. Trouble is nuclear plants are super expensive and never get past planning. Battery/pumped storage is way easier, with grants for solar and wind.
@@Educatedshrimp Small Modular Reactors are promising. Battery tech is still way out from being sufficient if we were to try and power the UK on solar and wind
The biggest issue with wind is that you need a lot of unused, open space that won't disturb wildlife or people too much. In America, the Plains states are ripe for this being rural. The problem is that we don't have the technology to make ocean wind turbines viable enough to be worth it, yet politicians keep focusing on it because they have to give jobs to wealthier costal areas. I suspect that in Britain the most viable place to build would be the North and midlands and parts of Scotland, but because that's not directly beneficial to the wealthier coasts and south, they will just try and fail to do it in the ocean. The only benefit to that is that it would be quicker to transfer the energy. @@Justybow
Until we know what to do with it we shouldnt be producing radioactive waste. They could use the nuclear power plants to split the hydrogen from oxgen in water, mix it with methane (much denser that CO2 but dissipates much faster) and we coul combine that into a fuel that would run in our same cars and keep our exact same infrastructure, just make the fuel from water instead of fossil fuels
wow so the green party is the only 1 talking about building council houses
And the only ones talking about wealth tax
@@Judep4237 Wealth taxes are abhorrent. Taxing the income on wealth properly, that is highly desirable.
No they're not. Their target is super low and includes purchasing existing private stock to turn into council housing, meaning that private rents in the area would increase. Batshit policy.
low is better than zero i guess, every other party seems to want to continue to ignore it completely which is just unacceptable imo. It doesnt surprise me they want to purchase private homes because 1 of the biggest problems for building new homes is nobody wants them built near them so it gets blocked.
I dont like the greens policy on climate, immigration and the woke stuff but since labour are going to win anyway we're getting all of that stuff from them regardless, and tbh i dont really care about those things all that much other than not liking them. However what i really do care about is the social housing crisis and also the need for drug reform/regulation due to how much more dangerous street drugs are today because of significantly stronger synthetic drugs.
Since the greens are the only party talking about those 2 specific issues i think they're going to get my vote
â@@enjoysilence4146i mean... So?
If you have 1000 houses that are each 1000ÂŁ a month in rent in private sector.
And then you turn those into council owned housing, so the amount and quality remains... The rent is lowered to some 500ÂŁ a month.
Over all.. cheaper rent for the same amount off houses, at the same quality.
The Green Party has a lot of policies that i really agree with and strongly believe will benefit the uk. they won't be easy to achieve but i really want to see how much they can do
The problem with politics is that we vote parties and not issues. I agree with like half of the Green's policies. But then also agree with some that they don't. Shame we don't vote on all major policies tbh.
@user-ds8rj2vc4v direct* democracy based. We have our own voices. Why can't we speak for ourselves.
I'm just fed up of an utterly unaccountable person deciding what an area cares about when most of them don't even pop in or live in that seat.
one of the many reasons the country is broken. People voted for low taxes and got human rights law breakers and crazy fiscal libertarians.
They dont, sorry.
Uk has many problems that are still coming to fruition.
Make sure you vote for them then!
My only issue is scrapping Trident. Huge dealbreaker
Those figures at 1:02... they can't be right, can they? That's terrifying
Itâs called Capitalism
Yep, welcome to life under capitalism. An average base worker at tesco's is making ÂŁ23,088 a year, while CEO Ken Murphy saw his pay more than double to ÂŁ9.93 million in the 2023/2024 financial year (ÂŁ1.64 million in fixed salary plus a bonus plus a PSP payout). I wonder why we've seen skyrocketing prices at tesco and other supermarkets?
Yes well done Rishi, those pay rises you keep barking on about and claiming credit for, they're not for normal people working normal jobs, they're for the CEO of Tesco who just received a 4.44M pay rise. At least he can afford to heat his home now.
â@@mariosin3256 also notice how the greens propose to fix this without abandoning capitalism, it's almost as if the problem of capitalist exploitation is more complex than capitalism bad.
IT WAS AN ERROR! replace the comma with a period and you get the right answer @mariosin3256
I admire the boldness of this manifesto
Few things that just wouldn't work. Especially ÂŁ15 minimum wage no matter what age. Prices would be so high for everything
Yea, tho i do think they're trying to do TOO much. Like focus on one section, and do it right. Tho i love the electoral reforms
@@teelo523 Not only prices will be high, a lot of jobs will disappear. Because if you are forced to pay someone higher than what he/she can produce, then you will be at a loss. Thus instead of actually producing jobs, you will eliminate jobs. Someone that enters in the work field has no clue what to do at the beginning. Which is why almost everywhere in the world, at any time, the old are paid more and the young are paid less. Because the later lack experience and knowledge. Minimum wage has never helped unemployment and poverty. It only exacerbated them.
@@teelo523 Of course, it would work and prices wouldn't rise significantly. Why does this false argument come up every time, even after there are so many examples where a significant increase in the minimum wage didn't lead to inflation?
@@petermelang6695 give me an example
80% excellent ideas,
except the lack of vision regarding nuclear energy... especially considering that Thorium alternatives exists today.
They might get a reluctant protest vote from me
I never got the anti nuclear stance. It's not like nimbys care. Selfish bastards don't want to build anything
Ah yes Thorium is working in China
No it Fing dose not exist. You idiots have been envibing that Thorium internet meme for a decade now and it's not happening and even if it did it would have NO IMPACT at all on the rediculus cost of Nuclear power.
I agree. Scaremongering about nuclear power is no longer an option when climate change is going to kill far more people. It's a shame our first past the post system means they have little chance of gaining power but at the very least we can hope that their suggestions will continue to diffuse into the left side of the major parties.
Realistically, I think that they'll likely only gain a single seat, if at all. Though, that said, as Caroline Lucas is retiring, her Brighton seat could be up for a battle
They might also win a seat in Hertford since they did amazingly well over here in the local elections last year.
@@TheJovian16 judging by polling, what I've heard and general experience of the area, I reckon they're in with a shot of winning in Bristol central too which would be significant as Labour's shadow culture secretary is standing there
@@TheJovian16 People vote differently in local and national elections.
I'd say the Greens have a chance in Bristol, Brighton and Norwich.
Probably 1-2 seats, and irrelevance in the face of Starmer's 100+ majority
â@jonnynolan yeah was going to point that out... Bristol Central... probably nailed on Green win
@@outerheaven8797 I think it's 50/50 in Bristol Central. Both parties probably have an equal chance of winning, although Bristol Central apparently has a lot of young people who are sick of the mainstream parties. I think that will help the Greens a lot there. Labour are still pretty strong though and a lot of people are gonna vote for them tactically at least.
Iâm Sorry, HOW MUCH OF A WAGE DISPARITY IS THERE AT TESCO?!
Average base worker at a supermarket is on ÂŁ12ph. CEOs are on 1million average plus perks.
You compare yearly with hourly?
@@decebalusflorei6164 Fine, 20k to 1million if you dont know what minimum wage looks like.
If you can't do the maths, then hourly x 37 x 52 = yearly..
Not complicated mate.
@@rageagainstmyhatchetthat's assuming no paid leave
I find it funny people will shit on the greens for their economic policy then say to vote reform đ
The truth is, that in the Uk, we are very right wing economic and socially. Reform is more attractive to right wing ideology.
â@@chat4783lmao did you even hear your self?
"The UK is very right wing socially"
Are they? Not at all.. actually the whole of UK politics is extremely left wing on the social aspect of governance.
The UK is even left wing socially compared to all of Europe, including the EU and western european countries.
You have Tories - conservative party that doesn't opose LGBT marriage, inheritance, adoption ext. Womans rights and workers rights...
Even the Reform oarty doesn't opose the above as much as most parties in the EU.
Europe is more right wing on these sociao aspects than the UK.
Meanwhile they somehow ignore Labour and the Tories and will instead likely vote for one of the two even when Labour have said and done similar things to the Greens before!
@@tomasvrabec1845Not opposing LGBT and human rights isnât left wing, unless you live in the United States.
The US isn't that right wing, people only see it as that because of the republicans getting around 50% of the vote, but the despite this americans are pretty liberal. 71% of americans support gay marriage, 57% of americans want more or steady immgiration, 63% of americans support abortion, 71% of americans support unions, 56% of americans want to decrease fossil fuel production (Data from Gallup or Pew Research).
They seem more labour than labour themselves. Scrapping tuition fees and 4 day working week how is anyone against this ?
You open your kids doors to freely choose something atleast rather being forced to take a 70k debt. And a 4 day working week so you as the parent work less? 3 day working week.
well anyone who did the math would be aginst it.
Britain is facing a labour shortage in most brnaches. But especially those which bring hands on services like plumbers or Builders (housing shortage much)
a 4 day week would reduce working hours from 40h to 32/35(more along the lines of other countries with that system) meaning you would need more people to get the same amount of manhours. But you are already lacking in the people department. A 4 day week can only be established where there are more people wanting to work than there is space for them.
This is typical green "it sounds good but we have no plan on how it woud actually work" marketing. The 4 day week is contrary to many of their other stated goals and therefore impossible to get through without sacrificing another goal.
Then there is the "social housing" thing. This will not fix the issue faced by britons. It will create a two class population. One living poor enough to get a cheap, but probably shabby social home and other rich enough to afford one of the now even more expensive homes, leaving the middle to rot in hell. Social housing is not bringing down housing prices it increases them. Ofcourse that is assuming that they mean social hosing and not sth else and just used a term not fit to describe their aim.
while scrapping tuitions is clearly just a "go get all the students" scheme they can not fulfill. It has 0 benefit but massive costs, a "limit to tuition and tuition increases" would be far more plausible ad feasible.
It is another example of "What even is money? we just need goals!"
And free ice cream and apple pie. Champagne for everyone
I would hate 4 day work week even if it doesn't reduce my salary.
I rather do 5 days and be more paid.
Doing 4 would mean that i simply have to keep doing second job on that day anyway...
â@1996Horst I'm not sure about the other points, but studies on a 4 day week have shown again and again how it's just as if not more productive than a 5 day week, with significant health benifits as well. So while you do have people working less hours, what those people get done in those less hours has been shown to be the same amount or in some studies more.
The problem is the leadership of the green party are barmy, as in âperforming hypnotherapy to enlarge breastsâ barmy
Improving critical thinking not withstanding, the reason the greens won't make an electoral impact is that almost no one reads manifests. Hopefully TLDR can make a change here.
Itâs also because tactical voting is on so many peopleâs minds
@@MariamPassionfruit Exactly. Even if I like what the greens are saying (which I mostly do) they won't get my vote because I'm in a safe tory seat. I still believe, even with the tories doing terribly, this constituency is still safe for them.
@@MariamPassionfruit Tactical voting is the window lickers solution to problems.
If more people read this manifesto I think they would get less votes. This would fuck the economy up
@@Gr0nal Yep. Thats why electoral reform is needed, which lol the greens are proposing, tho i don't think they'll do it
We've had 1 leaflet from Tories, 1 from labour, and over 25 from the green party...
They're insane for not prioritising nuclear power.
At least they aren't daft enough to fund economically impossible carbon capture projects.
No, because carbon capture is not green at all. No one with any genuine concern about the planet buys it as a principal solution. It's what the fossil fuel industry promotes because it they can convince enough schmucks that it's viable, they can keep lining their pockets.
Carbon capture projects are expensive but the cost to the economy in the long run will be far greater if we do not begin actively absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. There is no doubt that carbon capture and other absorption technologies will be instrumental in limiting climate change to an extent where parts of the planet remain habitable in decades to come. Carbon offsetting projects only reduce our total global carbon emissions but do not reverse them. However, whilst reducing emissions remains cheaper than absorbing them, it makes so much sense to prioritise this by introducing a carbon tax and financing carbon offsetting projects abroad. This is the reason why Greens have my vote this year - although Labour's focus on carbon capture and hydrogen is promising, more action is needed.
I wonder how anyone who does not support HS2 thinks we're going to handle the capacity issue from London to Manchester. Do they believe we should build more roads?
They didn't support, the first stage of hs2 because it was ecological damaging destroying a lot of old growth forest, carla denya stated that they would potentially complete the second phase of hs2 due to the damage already being done now, and if they didnt reinvest that money into public transport projects in the north, unlike the tories who want to use that money to build more roads
They absolutely want high speed rail, only problem is hs1 was especially environmentally destructive and there plenty of other alternative routes that would not be.
@@MariamPassionfruit No there was not an alternative route that is why it was chosen. You could say that about any route being environmentally damaging.
You could just invest in the northern economics so that people aren't constantly trying to get into London.
Having 20% of your economy in one place creates an immense infrastructure bottleneck.
@@rageagainstmyhatchet Well tough there is, and that means we need HS2.
In my 82 years I've seen 90 to 75% of all wild places & creatures destroyd & watched massive changes in climates around the world.. I support 7 enviromental/wild life organisations, walk--with my stick--take public transport, recycle, buy from charity shops support Amnesty & Labour. I will vote for the Greens as soon as they follow James Hansen to use Nuclear Power to help Renewables & put a tax on Carbon to repay to the Public. Before that I will never vote Green.
A 10:1 pay ratio would be fantastic. Much more equitable
that would theoretically cap salaries somewhere just over 100k which seems good, but there are definitely jobs out there where employees should be paid more like extremely critical high level services. IMO it should be 10:1 for executives vs the lowest paid staff, however I think that people in extremely high skilled technical positions, specifically engineers, scientists etc shouldn't have this limit applied. give people an incentive to be the best.
@@fantasypvp Make the pay gap match that of the UK military. The highest paid generals and experts in the national defense usually only make 10x that of a Private, though their are seperate allowances for uniform/housing etc. The idea that highly skilled people need obsene salaries is just wrong, the amount that they are 'better' over their peers is wildly exagerated.
P.S. Apply the same pay gap to proffessional athletes.
@@fantasypvp oh, is there a separate section for a cap? I think their min wage was 15 an hour? So somewhere around 30k a year. Which would be up to 300k for highly paid positions? That's ÂŁ25 grand a month.... Even 100k is 8 grand.... That's a fair old bit of money wherever you are, tho I suppose London is more expensive.....
â@@ChrisWar666 think full-time minimum wage for people over 21 is around 22k, so 220k for the top jobs.
I think it would find a lot of CEOs and such moving abroad tbh
@@fantasypvp why would it cap salaries at 100k lol? the minimum wage is now what, 24k.
Its so sad that first past the post makes it impossible to vote for them...
Don't you just tick a box?
@@JanjayTrollfaceeveryone is bitching about first past the post system, because itâs not aligned with woke narrative of everyone being awarded for with a the same size trophy đfor participating.
â@@NzePriddieNo, people bitch about it because it returns wildly disproportionate results and entrenches a system in which political change is reduced to a pendulum periodically swinging from one side to the other, instead of a broad range of interest groups coming together to try and find consensus and common ground to move things forward. FPTP is the least democratic form of democracy imaginable. The sooner we bin it the better.
You absolutely can vote for them if you want, especially this coming election where Labour are going to win a landslide anyways.
@@NzePriddielmao imagine thinking FPTP has anything to do with participation trophies. your understanding of elections is so basic and rudimentary, and you just canât help but call it woke because thatâs what your favorite talking head told you to do
Only party talking about wealth tax and reduce inequality. They've got my vote.
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
@@Nat-uw4fs what's funny?
The Green party almost had me when taxing the rich. I wonder why no other party does that.
Because it's not just a simple case of "tax the rich and give to the poor" parties aren't here to be robin hood. When you heavily tax the wealthy, you lose investment into the country and the wealthy end up leaving the UK, because they can get better tax benefits abroad. It is generally a net negative to impose drastic taxes on the wealthiest 0.1-0.2% of the UK.
Because the rich are in power and also they donate to parties (some more than others)
Because the other parties cozy up to the rich in order to get funding, of course.
Because if they ever had power everyone would be classed as rich and taxed to death.
â@@simony2801 It literally states it targets over 10m and 1bn of wealth. That's hardly everyone.
WHY THE FUCK do they want to ditch nuclear power ? đĄ
Because they're clowns.
It's also really expensive
@@TFSMF2 Stop spreading misinfo. Nuclear is THE cheapest form of energy per unit. Moreover, "Nuclear waste" is also soon to be extremely useful for second tier reactors.
@archockencanto1645
Eh, alright, fair enough. But It's not a fixed price.
Per MWh, the cost of nuclear energy is about ÂŁ64-65
By the same metric, onshore wind is ÂŁ21-ÂŁ59 and offshore is ÂŁ52-ÂŁ115
Don't get me wrong, I think getting rid of nuclear is a bad idea, too, but it's unsustainable in the long term, and the long term is kinda the Green Party's whole schtick.
@@archockencanto1645 Nah. Nuclear is unbelievably expensive and so s-l-o-w to build. Projects always go over budget.
Nuclear energy should be no1 on their list. đ
I said the same but my comment was deleted.
Exactly, you can't be against fossil fuels and against nuclear in the same sentence
I love nuclear and absolutely think the red tape for it needs to be cut but it's still somewhat of an open question whether it's all things considered cost competitive.
Frankly government shouldn't be making that call. Tax carbon or pay for clean power, cut red tape around nuclear and see what tech comes in with the cheapest costs.
â@@petergerdes1094so who should be making that call? People who only care about money? Gimme a break
â@@Steven-ly9ei yeah they're already against solar panels because they are too efficient and lower energy prices
What is the pay ratio number actually referencing? How many execs?
Some quick maths. 833,333 x ÂŁ20,000 salary suggests c. ÂŁ16.7bn in exec compensation. Tesco's total revenue is around ÂŁ60bn with an operating margin of around 5%, leaving ÂŁ3bn of operating profit. They do not have an exec pay ratio of 833,333:1...
Assuming minimum wage and a 40 hour week is around ÂŁ17.5k. Tesco CEO had total compensation of around ÂŁ10m last year. Thats a ratio of around 570:1. The ratio relative to the average was quoted as around 430.
Source: Guardian.
I would say we have a lot of choice for left wing parties...except that's generally not a good thing in first past the post
Youâre talking about the Green Party of England and Wales, surprisingly you didnât point that out.
I think itâs pretty clear lmao
@@moestavern5181 Not really; among the less politically informed there tends to be a lack of awareness on the separation of the parties in England and the other UK nations, or how those parties relate to each other if they're part of the same entity, eg Scottish Labour vs Labour. Given how little people tend to know about the Greens in the UK in the first place, it's important to demonstrate that the GPEW and for example, the Scottish Greens, are distinctly separate parties with their own policies and manifestos.
@@lindsaymobil22 Iâm pretty sure 90% of the population knows that the House of Lords is in Westminster, thousands of people get tours there everyday. Donât piss on my with your stream of consciousness, you are not clever.
Pretty obvious.
They are completely correct in saying the limiting factor of government spending is inflation. Well, more technically it's the economic resource limit, which links to inflation. Good to see them adopting MMT
I'm on board apart from the daft nuclear stance and HS2 nimbyism
Tbf to them nuclear is more expensive and time consuming compared to renewables and hs2 was incredibly environmentally destructive. Even then, thereâs a group in the greens literally called âGreens for HS2â, so thereâs some disagreement now
â@@MariamPassionfruitIf nuclear is not as profitable, why ban it? Seems contradictory at best
Also, a ÂŁ500 carbon tax per tonne is absurd
@@MariamPassionfruitbeing against HS2 is the same as being against all future high speed rail in the UK.
Thats the only thing you disagree with? Scary
The HS2 thing isn't NIMBYism or unique to them. Labour were also critical of it for years. It was basically a vanity project involving loads of money being wasted anyway, which is a big reason why even Labour were critical of it.
sounds incredibly expensive when the economy is badly suffering (ideas are good but tto good to be true) and getting rid of the nuclear deterrent is possibly the worst idea for the defense of the nation
Wow didn't realise pay disparity was so high. I'd support making it more equal.
It's not
@@User-he6zd Source?
â@@gamewithadam7235 This very channel in the pinned comment. They honestly should just delete this video and reupload it with the corrected figures.
@@RuthvenMurgatroyd That's not a credible source.
@@gamewithadam7235 Strange you were ready to believe them before. What changed?
You missed Northern Ireland when you were listing devolved governments
Are they still blocking solar panels ?
That happened because the specific plan proposed to that council would have destroyed a lot of nature and was blocked by the entire council, theyve put in a new plan to use land that is more suitable. Not the worst thing theyve done if you ask me.
Yes. Rural conservative local Green politicians will do anything to save grass, as we all know how much of a carbon sink it is and would overall help the planet far more keeping grass nobody uses that has near zero biodiversity đAlso no offshore wind if companies build it, as how it is built is more important than if it gets built, truly an amazing policy for those that care the most about the planet.
â@@MariamPassionfruitThey also reject based on not liking how solar farms look. I just googled and found another case where the Green MPs rejected a solar farm based on this
"...but it will stick out like a sore thumb from various vantage points on the north downs..."
â@@MariamPassionfruitif efficient use of land is their issue, then why are they so anti nuclear? Nuclear power plants use up less space but produces way more energy than a coal fired plant does and with no carbon emissions being released, let alone a solar panel farm.
â@@User-he6zdThey only have 1 MP. What's happened is they've had some local councillors oppose things like the construction of wind turbines or solar panels where they'd apparently "stick out like sore thumbs" or damage the local environment. I don't know anything about these areas, so I can't really comment on whether or not those councillors were right, but it's nothing to do with the national party. Also, I think it's important to always take the environment into account, even when building renewable energy sources like wind turbines. I think not doing that should be more contradictory if anything.
What gets missed from their NATO policy is that they no longer oppose it absolutely, but Green policy is to seek particular reforms (which would not be accepted by other alliance members) and would consider other security arrangements if those reforms couldn't be agreed. so essentially green policy is anti-Nato but one step removed. (this all according to an article by the Green Co-Convener on the Green Partyâs Peace, Security and Defence Policy Working Group)
Getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent is an incredibly stupid and short-sighted idea
That would just make the U.K. more dependent on the U.S. and, God forbid, France.
Thank you for this video, I didn't know what they stand for. I will definitely vote for them for these two reasons:
* four-day working week
* Increasing a minimum wage to ÂŁ15 an hour
Would you review even more obscure political parties like SDP, Liberals, TUSC, Climate, Heritage, Workers GB and UKIP?
This feels like to me that they know that they will not win, so theyre just having fun with it.
I think it would âhelp their electoral fortunesâ if they got this message out there. They need to be where people who think like this are. Theyâve got all these âradicalâ ideas, (in reality just unpopular with tabloids and right-of-centre broadsheets), but theyâre no good if no-one hears them.
they be sneaky trying to lump nuclear power in with fossil fuels: nuclear is an amazing energy source and there are so many precautions that is it among the safest. renewables are great but they just arent consistent enough and while hydro can bridge the gap, its location dependent and can have some pretty big ecological concerns
UK wind resources are infact very consistent and pumped hydro has litterally no environomental impact because its has isolated 1-2 km^2 pools.
What makes me laugh is every other parties manifesto has a picture of graphics that represents the party except Labour which is a picture of Keir Starmer, this shows you what the Labour party is all about đ
It's like how the American Dems plaster Joe Biden everywhere despite everyone hating him, if a party is going to run a personality campaign they do have to choose a leader people actually like.
Starmer got the policy on Israel and Gaza spot on. The Greens and their views are that of the cities such as Londonbad. Middle England and much of Britain would be in support of an Israel which reflects the values of the UK. Giving Israel money has got to be cheapest insurance against the Middle East.
You lost all credibility once you mentioned Londonabad
@@rice4550 and so, whoever maintains british society, upholds the world order, will be elected by what is a Conservative population. You're living in the bubble of the urban.
In a lot of Parliaments 5th place is fine. It depends on the numbers. If the ruling party needs a handful of votes then a handful will give influence but below that it's a matter of funding and committee seats.
Getting rid of Trident is an absolute no go for me, i want voting reform mainly so I guess its the lib dems for me
I was going to vote Green, but have switched to the Lib Dems. I was surprised how progressive their manifesto is - without being wacky. Sadly, Putin doesn't respect nuclear disarmament so we need to keep our weapons - at least for the time being. And we need nuclear energy also.
I could see myself voting for a party that would reduce or (multilaterally) end nuke stockpiles
But giving up nukes unilaterally, massively cutting the size and investment into all armed forces, giving up our UNSC veto and only deploying when China & Russia say so is absurd
Can't vote for Greens, esp because in my constituency they almost have a shot at winning and so not just a protest vote
Trident doesn't make us safer.
Nuclear missles didn't win the Falkland's war and we almost lost that because the carriers were about to be scrapped. Trident is acting as a drain on the defence budget that could be spent on things we need, like more tanks, soldiers, and ships.
@@nathanaelsmith3553 classic neolib, gtfo.
@@byunbaekhyun2283 wow - aggressive.
There are 650 MPs at Westminster, each on a salary of 91,000+ per year plus allowances and expenses. On retirement, each MP can expect a pension of two thirds of their final salary, 60,000 minimum per year. Of those 650 MPs only 8 or so could be bothered to turn up and show an interest at the commons debates on the excessive deaths of British citizens who continue to suffer and die as I type!
MPs aren't paid enough
It's not about being bothered to turn up, they have other commitments and scheduling to manage. TBH, it's a hard job with shite working conditions, less power than you would think and constant abuse from anyone with an axe to grind. They could get the equivalent salary and benefits in the private sector for much less hassle..
@@Tannhauser62 And that justifies and excuses 640 MPs to collectively and all at once ignore the deaths of our people, in the private sector such a dereliction would lead to sacking e.g. GOOGLE? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, at least you bothered to participate and express it!
About crime, I think we should toughen on it and donât reduce sentences. Instead, scrap criminal record for low level offenders, thatâs much more useful than shorter sentences and also still gives them the punishmentâŠ
0:55 SOLD FROM THE FIRST MINUTE đđ VOTING AHAH
4:35 ok itâs a no!đą
I would be interested in seeing a video on the manifestos of some of the smaller parties, at least the Workers Party and SDP. They rarely get any air time, I think giving a platform for some of these smaller (but not minute) parties is healthy for democracy.
That would be cool, but they donât stand in much constituencies. I know the Workers Party are standing in a lot more, but still not really nationwide like Labour, Tories, etc
@@the_BASE_00 iirc, WP is standing in smth like 150, and the SDP in about 120, so you're right, not many but still more than some of the parties that only stand 30 candidates. They're probably the biggest two of the minor parties.
But of course if they get no exposure, they get no supporters, and with no supporters, no donations, and with no campaign funds it becomes impossible to field many candidates. So they get trapped in a cycle of being small. That's why I think that the media has the duty to give some time to these parties, to help them break through without the help of millionaire donors. Ofc the media can't give time to every minor party, but I think the ones that have momentum should be given more exposure. There's a threshold of standing in 90-something seats which entitles a party to have a party political broadcast, perhaps that could be a good metric to go by.
I honestly find it infuriating that the British media would rather give air time to Nigel Farage but not to George Galloway
@@mapk1516 I mean I can understand why, reform is a much larger party (now polling second) so it's only natural that they'd need to give him the platform, but you have to question whether all the media attention is a big factor of what's helped propel him. Of course media attention alone isn't going to guarantee popularity, something clearly resonates with people but they'll never find something they can resonate with if the media doesn't platform them in the first place.
My big issue with the Green Party is that they do not want us to travel better, or travel or better forms of transport (otherwise they would support HS2), at their very core they want us to travel less
As always, it's important to note that this is the Manifesto for the Green Party of England and Wales. the green parties in Scotland and the north of Ireland are separate organisations, who will have their own manifestos for the election.
That max salary idea is open to abuse - a business will just employ one person on a stupid wage so that the CEO can get what they want. A better way would be to make it so the difference between the highest and lowest paid person at a company can't exceed a certain ratio.
... That's literally what is said though....????
As much as I admire the general philosophy of the greens, all of their economic ideas are just so bad.
The only policy I like from them is taxing the ultra wealthy top 0.5% to fund prosperity for the poorest.
Do you think their economic policies are worse than Liz Truss's?
@@mrakronyahoo no but I donât think a house fire is as bad as getting nuked. Doesnât mean I want either.
I notice you are unable to qualify the word 'bad.'
Yes â@@mrakronyahoo
When will they lower the audio of their intro?
I'm surprised there aren't more comments saying this, why does it have to be so annoyingly loud?
@@MisterM2402 itâs been that way for months now since I started watching the channel. Maybe since the beginning?
The Greens Party manifesto is about as worthwhile and credible as a Labour promise not to raise taxes.
Vote Conservative to save Britain from socialism.
I think a lot of people in the comments section here are either criticising the Greens for things that the other bigger parties do, such as pledging to spend a lot, or are just focusing on nuclear energy and HS2. While I agree that nuclear energy is good and I do disagree with the Greens about it, renewable energy is still a lot better. It's cheaper, safer (nuclear energy also is safe but not as much), and the issue of nuclear waste still exists. I think we should invest in it but renewable energy should be a priority. HS2 was also a vanity project that even Labour heavily criticised constantly for years, so its unfair to have a go at the Greens for that when most of the country were probably sick of it and Labour criticised it anyway. Yes, high speed rail is great and is important, but a lot of money was wasted on HS2 and it didn't really go anywhere for so long (quite literally too, as it took a long time to even finish building the actual railway lines).
Basically, I think people are generally just being unfair to the Greens here. The accusations of NIMBYism are also unfair. I disagree with them on a couple of things but overall I like them and will definitely vote for them. I'm willing to compromise and I know there are more pressing issues than just nuclear energy.
Look. If there was preferential voting i would put Greens 1. But sadly we only have first past the post so Iâll be voting strategically, sadly.
Greens = watermelon party, green outside and red inside.
Why would they include scrapping Trident? That's such a huge dealbreaker after several fantastic policies. Now I'm unsure whether to vote for them
Scrapping Trident might just be the biggest mistake made by a UK government ever
Lost me at scrapping nuclear and carbon tax...
Didn't they block solar panels and wind energy because it was led by developers. They aren't going to reach net zero if they keep doing this
They blocked it because it was going to be built on a nature reserve which was a bad idea, they suggested an alternative site which is now under development đ
They blocked it because that specific plan was hugely environmentally destructive, they are the GREEN party yk đ
One of the green Mayoral candidates, Frank Adlington Stringer and the Green Council has being doing this for Solar Farms because they âwould prefer hydroelectric powerâ (Iâm paraphrasing there) and other power sources, despite the fact that those solar farms could be massively beneficial. I support some of the Greenâs policies but honestly they need to be more pragmatic about these things. Theyâre far too uncompromising, both a benefit and curse.
This channel has a rather lefty viewer base which means more Green supporters. To give the other side, I found an article about Green led Council rejecting a solar farm, and they cited the view "...but it will stick out like a sore thumb from various vantage points on the north downs..." as a main consideration to reject.
They serve the interests of people who like seeing greenery. This is orthogonal to actual climate goals.
How did a party not in power BLOCK anything?
promising a gazillion dollars dosent make your party look legitimate
like i understand nationalisation but 10b for insulation a year for example is silly
Wealth taxation, and other taxes, could fund this. Cracking down on tax dodgers and removing non-dom status (which even Labour said theyâd do)
â@@ProsecutorZekromassuming there isnt an exodus; combined with the 10:1 requirement, many high net worth investors will just leave.
@@Gliccit Let them. The ones with assets in this country that they canât take with them will be forced to abandon them or stay.
@@ProsecutorZekrom you dont deserve to vote
Is this the party thatâs against people installing AC units?
You should do a video like this for the Liberal Democrats. I'm curious to hear their manifesto, considering that they're doing pretty well.
Easy to pitch infinite cool shit when you'll never be held accountable to deliver it.
All their goals seem rather attainble and just because they don't bé in gouvernement dosen't mean that their policies won't have influence on parties like Labour or thé Lib dems who will try to stay green voters to their side by shaping their own polices towards green voters a little.
@@Georgeilocks A lot of them aren't realisitc in the real practical world and would criple th country.
â@@Antonio-hb8rdhow. How would it cripple the economy? By making rich people pay for the crap they don't need?
can any economists explain that one to me đ
â@@Steven-ly9eiÂŁ15 minimum wage would be a good start to fuck the economy up. Just harms small businesses and brings prices up for everything
@@Georgeilocks Nah. Like 90% of what they said would be impossible to do. You don't have infinite time or resources. While i agree with 90% of what they said(except the whole new wealth tax(that would ruin people who have assets but not income, like farmers)and them being anti nuclear) it still is WAAAY to much to do in one term
Banning short term flights is a ridiculous idea. The only reason people fly from Manchester to London is for connecting flight. I live in Liverpool, and when I went to the Maldives last year, I flew from Manchester to London to catch my flight at London Heathrow. If you prevent people from flying from Manchester to London, you won't stop people flying, all people like me will do is fly from Manchester to Amsterdam, and therefore giving business to another country and hurting the north of England once again. The Greens are NIMBY's
Manchester to Heathrow takes 3 hours on the train.
in my opinion, high-speed rail would be a greater alternative to SHF/STF, far less emissions and more efficient than planes
@@tinylittlebabybat Green against HS2
@@edentyler-moss1157 Good, so does that mean the Green Party are going to help with the capacity issue with going from Manchester to London and vice versa?
It would be alright if they replaced the short haul flights with a more suitable mode of transit, such as idk, some sort of high speed rail.
It baffles me a left leaning party is against nuclear energy and more train lines
In one sense because it is the Green Party's manifesto it does not matter as they will never be in power, but it is a window into more left wing thinking than the current Labour party manifesto is (mostly because they want to be in power and therefore have to appeal to the centre).
Dealing with the policies as detailed in the video:
1. Workers rights: 4 day week is interesting, the practical experience suggests it is good for productivity and no more costly for a lot of companies than a 5 day week. The 10:1 pay ratio is just bonkers, private company pay is determined by shareholders not politicians. Raising minimum wage and irrespective of age does make a lot of sense.
2. The public sector spending ideas are obviously based on fact greens will never have to actually implement them and find the money to pay for them, but a large scale social house building program does need to happen
3. Green power. Leaving aside their incoherent hatred of nuclear power, there is a lot to like in the manifesto
4. Tax: complete opposite of the Green power policies, these are an incoherent mess. As the Andrew Neil interview showed their wealth tax hasn't been thought through by the Greens.
5. Constitution: Complete agree with repealing laws on voter id (a solution in search of a problem) and I have been a fan of reducing voting age to 16 since the Scottish independence referendum where it was clear 16 & 17 year olds were both enthused by the ability to vote and carefully considered their vote. As for the HoL, there is no point in calling for its replacement until you have a clear idea what the purpose of a second chamber is. As for PR, there is no point in discussing it until you are clear exactly what sort of PR is being proposed to replace FPTP so that we, the British public, can consider its pros & cons
1 - Pay ratios of that size are NORMAL in other nations like Japan, and are the norm in all western militaries and were the norm in corporations just a few decades ago. Their is zero evidence that balloning executive pay has done anything for society and plenty of evidence that it is a disaster.
2 - The Greens are willing to tax at Nordic levels, and we know that thouse nations afford these things, so saying it can't work is just denying reality.
3 - Nuclear is a total boondogle and Greens are right to oppose it.
4 - Wealth taxes are a well defined concept and they have a specific proposal what is unclear?
5 - While I feel no need for upper chambers their purpose is well established, to act as a check on the lower house by being a more deliberative *cough* conservative *cough* body. As for needing to have an exact propotional representation plan that would be stupid as thouse details would almost certainly be worked out with a group of OTHER 3rd parties which would be needed to get such a thing passed. Not to mention the pros and cons nearly all hinge on the general concept not the specifics, the pros being that your Parliment would you know actually bear ANY resemblence to the will of the people.
@@kennethferland5579 1. What exec pay should be has nothing to do with govt. It is purely a matter for the shareholders and in any case would not apply to companies who are based outside of UK which does rather suggest the solution big companies would adopt.
2. Clearly you are too young to remember UK pre 1990. I am sure the Greens are willing to tax at Nordic level the problem is that the evidence from 1960s to 1990 is that simply results in less tax revenues
3. We can agree to disagree on the need for nuclear energy but I hope we can agree on the need to move away from fossil fuels.
4. Wealth taxes do not work, just look at the evidence from France, Sweden and most recently Norway
5. I am sure you are aware that there are many different types of PR each of which has pros and cons. There is a reason why proponents of PR never fix on a single system and that is because whilst the British public is keen on the concept when a specific system is proposed they prefer FPTP despite its many flaws
*Vote Green or Lib Dem! Don't give Tory Starmer a massive majority, unless you want more austerity and inequality.* đŹđ§đȘđș
Voting greens will do nothing to get the tories out and they are also awful at everything
Farage
Anyone but farage. Farage makes galloway look sane. Yes. Even the video of him being a cat đ
â@@MK-um3pxYeah, don't vote for Farage either
Vote Reform if you care about this land and its people. The torys are lefties
People getting hung up on nuclear, the amount of smaller start ups getting involved in hydrogen from recycled materials and syngas is phenomenal and a lot cheaper than nuclear. The nuclear part isnât an issue. This with more renewable would be fine.
The taxing of high costs assets has me, Iâll be voting green đđŒ
Banning nuclear weapons and energy is so stupid. I can't ever vote for a party with such policies. And whilst a 4 day working week and ÂŁ15 minimum wage would be nice, it's unrealistic and would be terrible for the economy.
So, left wing populism?
Taxing the ultra-rich, proportional representation, electable house of lords, 10 to 1 wage ratio. Seriously, how can you not vote for them? I agree with almost everything in this manifesto
Because we aren't this gullible and short-sighted
Brexit results and the continual re-election of Tories would suggest otherwise....
50k annual wage is not super rich, thats middle class; keep in mind we've had terrible wage growth since 2008
The ultra rich facing 72%+ marginal income taxes are apparently a family in London with 3 kids, graduated from uni, earn
I should note, I still think Greens have or had some good ideas. I have written before to my MP in favour of a carbon tax set similar to existing EU countries rates
I also supported Greens abolishing NI.
But now they want a carbon tax over 3x bigger than the highest carbon tax in any European country (potentially any other country, but haven't checked) and instead of abolishing NI as they said in 2021 want to increase it.
They've already made the case themselves for why this policy is bad-- The retired donât pay NI. Investors donât pay NI. Landlords donât pay NI.
It hits low asset median income people the most, doubly so for anyone living in a HCOL area
So I've seen TLDR explaining the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and now Green manifestos. Is the Reform manifesto next I take it?
It should be
The only green thing in the House of Commons apart from Caroline Lucas was the green seats in the Commons
The Green Party: "We're not the Tories, and we're not Labour, so we can say whatever the hell we want even if it apparently goes against everything we stand for"
I am not from Britian, what do you mean by this? What are they lying about? Seems like most of their policies are align with some green policies, no?
The Green manifesto is akin to a 5 year old's letter to Santa.
You can say and promise anything if you know you'll never be in power and so will never be responsible for implementing anything.
@@lexter8379Against Nuclear Energy
@@FranzBieberkopf It sounded pretty normal, though I don't know the numbers. Is it bad to be more radical? Or what was so magical in the manifesto?
@@johnwhittington2998 Why?
These ideas arenât very realistic but Iâll take them over the Tories any day.
I think it should be a felony to vote for greens in every European country
Or labour
â@@HimmelKingYou want to ban democracy?
@@nathanaelsmith3553 At least Labour's plans are realistic.
@@HimmelKing Very patriotic, this is exactly why our great-grand fathers fought in WWII. Vote only those I personally approve.
5:01 âPublic expenditure can only be expanded as far as the economy has the capacity to absorb it without triggering dangerous levels of inflation.â
_Finally,_ at least one party in the UK is saying something sensible about public spending, rather than addressing the usual, economically illiterate âWhere is the money going to come from?â/âHow are we going to afford that?â âconcerns.â Iâm _really_ glad TLDR highlighted that point. Other news media would do well to highlight it as well (but they probably wonât).
Do they have any particular policies on immigration?
Taxing assets over ÂŁ10million would tax most arable farmers, making bread, pasta, veg... A lot more expensive. Farmers have always been asset rich despite making a loss 1 in 3 years.
Land is often considered an asset, so it would also tax wildlife trusts who often own land in expensive locations.
I agree whilst good in principle I have no idea how a wealth tax would be executed...
Asset rich, income poor would be a big problem for this.
And for those who aren't income poor, well I'm pretty sure they can essentially just make themselves income poor through a number of loopholes. Then what?
How much more expensive? I think I could live with slightly higher food prices if that money is spent on helping the poorest in our nation. The price of food is really quite moderate compared to other places I have lived in Europe (Ireland, France, Denmark).
That said, I agree that cutouts on farm assets should probably added to the law. That doesnât seem to me to be the place we should be seeking revenues.
sorry but if you are a farmer with over 10 MILLION in assets you are rich and should be taxed more
@@nathanl4083 I donât think the original comment was saying that they shouldnât be taxed more, just that it may not make sense to add a wealth tax.
I obviously donât understand the numbers as well as the OP, but clearly if a farm worth ÂŁ10M produces less than ÂŁ100,000 in profit every year then the farm would literally be losing money. I donât know what the asset/profit ratio of farms are, but I imagine quite low, so I can see how this could be an issue.
I do imagine though, that if this law were passed the value of assets with low profit-to-asset ratios would likely fall, so perhaps this will balance out over time?
What about SNP?
Would love to see what has John Sweeney & co put together, their situation is so precarious and their image is so damaged between Hamza, people abandoning the party and their corruption scandal. Seeing their attempts to turn back such a disaster would be interesting.
A 10:1 pay ratio is kinda an interesting idea to me. Like you know it would be a disaster when considering the global market and how many international companies wouldn't stand for it or would withdraw from the marketplace. You'd have most CEOs immediately unable to afford their own lifestyle. The pound would very likely default.
That said I still want to see it happen just because I can imagine it would immediately cause huge restructuring that benefits the working to middle class range of the population.
The best manifesto so far? How is it that the smaller parties have the best manifestos (even though they have no chance to apply them)? Is it perhaps because they have no power-greed [yet], so they promise more than they could (while Labour and Conservatives, already knowing how much power plays, play on more moderate promises)?
Aren't they also the only party to not say they'll implement recommendations from the cass review or other culture war transphobe bs?
They published a report disagreeing with the cass review, saying it prejudiced, misleading and unhelpful. Tbh i read it too, there was a lot of transphobic sentiment in there
@MariamPassionfruit greens have had a number of issues with transphobia in the past, but now seem to have the least of the national parties.
Still reason we're called terf island.
â@@JaakkoismThey have issues but have dealt with transphobia a lot better than the others. They're at least better than Labour on it and ignore culture war stuff.
Your ideology is one side of the culture war. You are delusional.
Please do a video comparing Greens and Lib Dems. They are pretty close together ideologically and I find it hard to separate them!
If there was ever a JOKE or April's fool's manifesto. It would look a lot like the green's manifesto
Wasted vote đ¶ïž Vote Lib Dem đ¶ïž because labour are not left enough & only Lib Dem can be the opposition
Lib Dems: Spending monayyyyy đ
Greens: Spendin' HELLA BIG MONAYYYYYY đ°đ°đ°đ€đ€đ€đ€đ€đ€đ€đđđđđđđđđđ
Labour: no
What are you on about? Labour are going to be spending billions that we don't have? They always do. All 3 are massive spenders and get us into serious debt
â@@Mogojoegotubeguess who is in power and increased debt humongously and guess which pm did such a bad job as pm in her first monetary action that she had to resign. All these three aren't done by green and labour or lib dems
Are you okay? What election are you watching>?
@@Mogojoegotube
If you read the manifestos, Labour has made smaller spending commitments than the Conservatives. They won't even commit to scrapping the 2 child limit on child benefits. If you quit being hysterical about Jeremy Corbyn for a few seconds and read the manifesto, you'll notice Labour has a very plain and boring policy on public spending.
â@@Mogojoegotubebetter to overspend than to consistently give tax cuts to societies least deserving (the leeches who own everything)
Nice ideas, mostly impossible. Rejoining the EU and nationalisation are nice, but many of their policies are either stupid or impossible.
That's why in sensible countries you usually get a ruling coalition of several parties which agree on a compromise with the extremes tuned down. It's nice being able to have anything else than red or blue running the show.
@@cholzkohle1475 FPTP isn't going anytime soon.
Their policies aren't experimental- they're all tried and tested, either in another country, or in our own past
@markwelch3564 Many of their policies tried and tested in multiple countries, but not all at the same time or in the same place.
It's fun to see that my home state's (Maine), and Scotland's largest electric providers are owned by the same Spanish conglomerate. Makes me feel connected to my ancestors.
I love globalized capital. One company can own whole portions of multiple countries, all while operating in another totally unrelated country.
i'm voting green in islington south & finsbury.
Emily Thornberry is a terrible human being and needs a career change.
Greens are always like watermelon - green on the outside, red on the inside with brown pieces here and there.
Russia: "attacks Europe"
Greens: "ummm let's give up our nuclear deterrent and let France do it, that makes sense đ§đ§đ§"
Always thought they were a bit more like an orange- named after a colour.
Yeah because they calling for the removal of the state đ
Not even close to commies champ
@@archiebuchan2563 Fun fact: the colour orange is actually named after the fruit, which is itself named after the tree it grows on
â@@misterlinux9290 As an Australian, this argument seems like little more than militarist propaganda. There are 190 countries without nuclear weapons. Do you think Russia is going to invade Germany and Italy, too?
first comments aren't cool anymore
wow what a trailblazer
Idealistic me: *votes Green Party*
Realistic me: *votes Labour*
The new Brit monkey video showed the greens opposing good local policies like a solar farm which annoyed me. I also donât like their opposition to nuclear power when it would help hit climate targets
Everyone, we can join the Green party and hopefuly influence them to adopt nuclear - other than that, all for their manifesto. I'll be voting Green