The green party broadcast is hilarious.

how was the theresa may part "accurate"? in this country we don't have a policy of kicking immigrants out for "not having enough money". they are entitled to benefits just like domestic nationals are.

I assumed that was if we left the EU - surely it's reasonable to assume that the EU's freedom of movement principle wouldn't allow for a policy like this? how not?

Unfortunately I won't be able to give a detailed response to every post as it's fairly time consuming.

But there are several countries that are trialling a national income right now with positive results, just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean bad.
We are services-centric economic system, with a pre-eminent financial servies sector with high levels of migration and a heterogenous population.
This makes the UK particularly unsuited to a social democratic model, and increasing immigration would further exacerbate that. 280 billion pounds is a lot of money and this system risks disincentivising labour, not to mention costing is going to be made worse by the inevitable huge capital flight we would face due to punitive taxes.
This policy may have been workable in the 1960s, and they might work in certain small homogenous countries, but they certainly won't work here.
The only way this country can ever be truly sustainable and prevent crashes like we had/are currently in is to move away from this idea of constant growth, it will never work forever, it obviously can't work forever!!!
To mulitlaterally aim for a better management of resources is one thing, but unilaterally impoverishing ourselves will do nothing to stop the drive for constant growth. The instant we reduce our aggregate demand some other country will step in and prosper at our expense. A government's first duty is to its people, and impoverishing the people of the UK isn't in our interest.
See above for immigration.
You didn't address my specific point about immigration, that it cannot possibly work in tandem with a socialist country, which requires an allegiciance to the country in question and a static workforce.
There are plenty of things great about Britain and bad about foreign policies, but this is why I believe we are better working together rather than further segregation.
These are airy words, could you give a concrete example of what you mean for working together.
See above for armed forces.
I disagree with he Conservative cuts to the defence budgets as well,. The fact that the goverment are making a mistake with this does not mean that the Greens should promote it as well.
I don't really see why people hate foreign aid spending so much, but ok, I guess if you are strongly against this I can't really argue with you about it, but in reality we are talking about 0.3% of the budget.
0.7% of GNI is not a negligeable sum, particularly when it is funding African despots and rich nations like India. It's also the principle of it. It shows where green party priorities lie.
The view that they believe every Middle East problem is our fault is again a skewed view on your behalf. But yes you are correct in thinking that they rightly believe that the west's interference in the Middle East has undoubtedly added to the problems there.
1400 years of sectarian bloodshed would indicate the West is not the key reason for the problems there.
Also the current methods of tackling terrorism are disastrously unsuccessful, I think they are providing some interesting insights, alongside Jeremy Corbyn on how we might be able to change our foreign policies to approach from a different angle.
ISIS have yet to strike in the UK, so the security services are doing well from that standpoint, and ISIS are being pushed back, albeit largely by Russian and Syrian forces.

Corbyn is providing interesting insights? Like his terrific idea to back-channel with the deranged death-cult which would love nothing more than to kill everyone in this country. The idea that ISIS can somehow be appeased or negotiated with is beyond delusional.

was the world richer during feudal times or during capitalism? was there as much personal liberty and happiness during feudalism? I don't understand why you'd say feudalism > capitalism unless this is a weird kind of joke

1) it's not a matter of physical force. it's a matter of not exploiting kids. for instance, a paedophile might be able to technically get a kid to consent to sex (in a literal sense) - but so what? it's still exploitation, isn't it? that's the issue here.

You have no way heard that they want to ban cars. This is completely ridiculous and to be honest anyone that could possibly believe this is a complete idiot (sorry, I don't like to insult people, but SERIOUSLY!!!!). Where exactly did you hear this, because it would not be from a genuine source?

This is a major problem with this country people hear these little snippets and actually believe them and it actually influences their voting. If people actually did even a bit of research they would be so much better prepared to vote. I just seriously cannot believe what I hear people say. Even well educated people, I've heard them say the Greens want to ban all fishing or turn everyone vegan, this is simply NOT true. My hope is that as the Greens eventually do become more mainstream, which no one can deny is happening these ridiculous rumours will eventually be debunked and people that would otherwise vote for them might finally be ready to give them a shot.

Really dont apreciate being called an idiot! I never said i believed it, i just said i pd heard it before. And i heard it from people at college so it probably wasnt. Areliable source but there need need to go called people idiots for listening to things that people are ****ing saying, is there!!!!

Again i never ****ing said i belived it, its a totaly rediculous idea that will never be implemented.
It doesnt influence my voting. I never liked them from the start. I dont care if people want to save the enviroment, theres nothing wrong with it.
I hope they dont become mainstream, because theyre filled with people like you!
Imagine the country being ran by someone who cant read properly. Not gonna work.

I don't think universal income is necessarily a bad idea, and I think there is some merit in there idea of reducing constant economic growth.

Yes I know, and I don't like insulting people, hence my apology. However it is ridiculous incorrect rumour spreading like that that is in my opinion idiotic. I will say then that I do not know if you are or are not an idiot, however you definitely displayed idiotic behaviour.

I dont like getting angry, but sometimes people make me angry and ive never done anything. Now ive realized i need to.
Im not idiotic, this is just my last 18 years of bottled up anger being unleashed at last.
Im being bullied at the moment at college and i dont really appreicate being idiotic for sharing something i overheard.
Its a ridiculous proposition, i know that.

I might apologize for being angry there. Somethings just make me really angry and im now deciding to fight back rather than letting it destroy me.

Copying what I said to an earlier reply:

On universal income;

We are a services-centric economic system, with a pre-eminent financial servies sector with high levels of migration and a heterogenous population.
This makes the UK particularly unsuited to a social democratic model, and increasing immigration would further exacerbate that. 280 billion pounds is a lot of money and this system risks disincentivising labour, not to mention costing is going to be made worse by the inevitable huge capital flight we would face due to punitive taxes.
This policy may have been workable in the 1960s, and they might work in certain small homogenous countries, but they certainly won't work here.

On reducing constant economic growth:

To mulitlaterally aim for a better management of resources is one thing, but unilaterally impoverishing ourselves will do nothing to stop the drive for constant growth. The instant we reduce our aggregate demand some other country will step in and prosper at our expense. A government's first duty is to its people, and impoverishing the people of the UK isn't in our interest.

I dont like getting angry, but sometimes people make me angry and ive never done anything. Now ive realized i need to.
Im not idiotic, this is just my last 18 years of bottled up anger being unleashed at last.
Im being bullied at the moment at college and i dont really appreicate being idiotic for sharing something i overheard.
Its a ridiculous proposition, i know that.

I might apologize for being angry there. Somethings just make me really angry and im now deciding to fight back rather than letting it destroy me.

They would say that our reliance our reliance on financial services is a bad thing, and they may have a point.


I agree with most of that, and that's enough for me not to support the green party (as well as other reasons)

That said:

I'm something of a trident-sceptic. I'm not particularly convinced we need a nuclear deterrent and it could be spent better e.g on military research.

I think we should leave NATO, or ideally Kick Turkey out

You are right, I shouldn't have responded in the way I did. I think it was just such a ridiculous statement (and I've heard a few recently) that I reacted in a way I shouldn't have done. I should definitely have responded more constructively. So I apologise.

oh for ****'s sake not again - using mere *children* for political purposes...that's ****ing low. honestly. they shouldn't do that. don't politicise children or use them for political ammunition. they have no idea what they're doing or saying when they're told to read out these scripts that are obviously spun for the green party's agenda. and if it wasn't for the green party's agenda, what would be the point of the video?
imagine if far right politicians started exploiting children for politics - we'd all be justifiably outraged. so why can they do it? this is truly inappropriate and I'm actually surprised that nobody on this thread even addressed this yet. they can only say "hahaha oh kids say the darnedest things" - I expected more

So you're telling me that the kids used in the video and the actual politicians they're representing... are different......?