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!
@@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
@@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
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.
@@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 😅
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
To be clear: giving junior doctors our 35% pay restoration (not a rise) all at once, would cost just over £1bn once tax and national insurance is taken into account. The government has spent £3bn fighting us.£1bn for an economy of our size is simply a non-issue, in terms of money.
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
@@enjoysilence4146i mean... So? If you have 1000 houses that are each 1000£ 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 500£ a month. Over all.. cheaper rent for the same amount off houses, at the same quality.
Yep, welcome to life under capitalism. An average base worker at tesco's is making £10,000.64 a year, while CEO Ken Murphy saw his pay more than double to £9.93 million in the 2023/2024 financial year (£1.64 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.
@@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.
@@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?
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 😂😂😂. How can people be this illiterate lol
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!
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!"
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...
@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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
Liberal Democrats are responsible for putting millions of students in debt, so an entire generation will never trust them, much like the Conservatives.
I would be retiring or working less in 5 years, and I'm curious to know best how people split their pay, how much of it goes into savings, spendings or investments, I earn around $250K per year but nothing to show for it yet.
predicting short-term market movements is extremely difficult in reality. It also essentially requires the investor to be right twice: they must perfectly time both their entrance to and exit from the market.
That is exactly the reason I stopped taking advise from RUclipsrs; in the long run, I only end up with a jumbled collection of stocks and bonds. Whereas all I needed to earn over $350k in less than two years was guidance from a true market expert.
@@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!
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).
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
@@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
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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 £25 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.....
@@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
@@JanjayTrollfaceeveryone is bitching about first past the post system, because it’s not aligned with woke narrative of everyone being awarded for with a the same size trophy 🏆for participating.
@@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.
@@NzePriddielmao imagine thinking FPTP has anything to do with participation trophies. your understanding of elections is so basic and rudimentary, and you just can’t help but call it woke because that’s what your favorite talking head told you to do
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.
@@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 £64-65 By the same metric, onshore wind is £21-£59 and offshore is £52-£115 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.
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.
Tbf to them nuclear is more expensive and time consuming compared to renewables and hs2 was incredibly environmentally destructive. Even then, there’s a group in the greens literally called “Greens for HS2”, so there’s some disagreement now
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.
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
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 😊Also 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.
@@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..."
@@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.
@@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.
@@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 I’m pretty sure 90% of the population knows that the House of Lords is in Westminster, thousands of people get tours there everyday. Don’t piss on my with your stream of consciousness, you are not clever.
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 Party’s Peace, Security and Defence Policy Working Group)
I will be voting Green for the first time. Always been Lib Dem before that. I hope the country wakes up and doesn't simply tactically vote either red or blue. Vote for the party you want, people!
What is the pay ratio number actually referencing? How many execs? Some quick maths. 833,333 x £20,000 salary suggests c. £16.7bn in exec compensation. Tesco's total revenue is around £60bn with an operating margin of around 5%, leaving £3bn 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 £17.5k. Tesco CEO had total compensation of around £10m last year. Thats a ratio of around 570:1. The ratio relative to the average was quoted as around 430. Source: Guardian.
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 😂
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.
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
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 don’t pay NI. Investors don’t pay NI. Landlords don’t pay NI. It hits low asset median income people the most, doubly so for anyone living in a HCOL area
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
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 £15 an hour
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.
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 £15 minimum wage would be nice, it's unrealistic and would be terrible for the economy.
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
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 isn’t an issue. This with more renewable would be fine. The taxing of high costs assets has me, I’ll be voting green 👌🏼
I see the Greens in my country aren't alone in being idealistic and clueless economic stewards who simply ignore how impractical and unimplementable the majority of their policies are.
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.
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.
I think it would “help their electoral fortunes” if they got this message out there. They need to be where people who think like this are. They’ve got all these “radical” ideas, (in reality just unpopular with tabloids and right-of-centre broadsheets), but they’re no good if no-one hears them.
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
@@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
@@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.
Really helpful and balanced insight into the Green Party policies. I'll definitely be voting Green this time, as I find they have the fairest and most positive ideas to help improve life for all of us in the UK.
@@joew9608I don’t think those are good ideas but for what we have, Greens overall are the best in my opinion and even though I may disagree on those issues their economic platform is by far the one that promises the most hope for the UK public
@@ConfydeMusicThose are not just flaws, that’s basically getting rid of the uk’s biggest and basically only effective deterrent. And the fact they were opposed to remaining in NATO until 2023 tells me all I need to about them.
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"
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.
I'm voting green because the are the closest match to my point of view. Its crazy that the greens are more left than labour. Our entire countrys political system is broken. 😢
In most places on the planet, the greens are usually left of the main left-wing party, but to the right of open communists. Theres nothing crazy about it.
The greens have always been left of Labour…..(though left/right isn’t really a fair way of discussing it, as Greens obviously have environmental aims overriding many of their ideas.)
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 don’t stand in much constituencies. I know the Workers Party are standing in a lot more, but still not really nationwide like Labour, Tories, etc
@@theBASE00 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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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 😂
@@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
@@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?
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!
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!
@@Tannhauser62 much less hassle? if you watch the tv station that shows palement most of them are a sleep at the meetings. not only that they get summer off and in that time get paid enough to buy a big house and all there fancy meals are free.
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.
@@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.
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
If you believe in these policies, vote Green! A larger vote share for the Greens will show the Labour government that we need to take inequality and the climate emergency seriously.
Annoyingly, the Tories losing so hard will give Starmer such a powerful majority it wont, unless there are historic voting shifts. He’s already made it clear he hates left wingers and wont allow them. The best we can hope for is Reform seriously upsetting things, if they can indeed get the upset they want then hopefully the call for PR becomes too strong for even that stubborn pighead Starmer to ignore.
4-day work week; ending exploitative executive pay; stopping water companies polluting our rivers, wealth tax, rejoin EU to boost the economy etc. What's not to like?
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
@@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?
I wasn't very happy with the way the Green Party behaved in Scotland. The only way I would vote for them in future is if they ditched their social policies and described themselves as a one-issue party. The Green Party should promise to improve the environment all the rest is dangerous wishful thinking.
This is bonkers. Enforcing a pay ratio will drive businesses to incorporate elsewhere. A wealth tax will cause people to move assets elsewhere. It would work in the extreme short term but will ultimately result in tax being paid in other countries instead of our own.
One thing I’ve never understood about Greens is their complete open door immigration policies. I can’t help but feel they should be rebranded as the “Grey Party” because their policies would see every green area in this country covered in property
Honestly they've gotten my vote as they're quite the only truer left party in the UK And even if I see the main issue of not investing in Nuclear energy or in high speed rail networks (The HS2). Which makes me hesitate They're the ones who seem quite competent to do stuff that most young and worker class Brits want to happen: - Nationalisation of energy, sewage and rail companies - Major investment in green energy (I still think they should consider nuclear) - Reduce the inequality stuff - Embracing preferential vote I know this is just their manifesto, but they seem competent enough to do it, although they need to do a series of laws and act reforms to do so. (Town Meeting and Planning act)
most economist are atleast centre-left, it is bad for the economy to have wealth inequality because the rich dont spend their money. Reagenite economic policies have been tried and destroyed the middle class and most economist (except for the once paid of by the billionares) agree that it doesn't work
These guys do well until they come to Income tax. Raising the rates on people who are already paying 40 or 45 percent tax is just messed up. £50k/year doesn't get you that far in a city like London, and increasing taxes on those people is just cruel
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.
5:01 “Public expenditure can only be expanded as far as the economy has the capacity to absorb it without triggering dangerous levels of inflation.” _Finally,_ at least one party in the UK is saying something sensible about public spending, rather than addressing the usual, economically illiterate “Where is the money going to come from?”/“How are we going to afford that?” “concerns.” I’m _really_ glad TLDR highlighted that point. Other news media would do well to highlight it as well (but they probably won’t).
I wish I could vote Green and have it be meaningful, telling Supreme Leader Starmer to move left, but the Tories losing so badly will give him such huge undeserved power, and he is so arrogant and dictatorial that its pointless. The tragic thing is, my best hope is Reform screwing with the results so badly that PR becomes unavoidable.
As a member of the Green Party and also someone who ran as a Green councillor (and lost to the tories) I really like this manifesto, I just wish it was a bit more passionate about rejoining the EU and I wish that it would drop the opposition to Nuclear and drop those AWFUL House of Lords reforms.
@@cdw2468 this is gonna be a fairly long answer but here it is: When I studied politics at College I was part of the debate club, and once we debated exactly this. I I was arguing why we SHOULD get rid of the House of Lords and I kept loosing the arguments until I realised that it was simply because I was wrong. Basically, the greens would want to replace the HoL with what is effectively a Senate (similar to what you have). And this would hugely damage the effectiveness of the HoL because; - The House of Lords are unelected, which sounds like a bad thing but when you look into it you realise this come with far more benefits than negatives like how they are not under the Whip of the party that they are a part of which means they don’t need to be afraid of being punished for going against the government or shadow government, they also don’t need to worry about being voted out for unpopular opinions, and it means they can say what the authentically believe without worry of being demonised by the media or their “constituents”. -The House of Lords are currently Appointed rather than elected, which means that they get where they are based on merit, not charisma or populism or their party’s popularity. That said I do believe that politicians like the prime minister shouldn’t be allowed to put people in the HoL and it should instead be decided by an independent House of Lords appointments commission. -Another good thing about the House of Lords is that even though they are unelected, the constitution means that because they are unelected they don’t actually have that much power, they cannot create laws or bills and they cannot stop laws or bills, they are only allowed to delay legislation (up to three times, this is called ping ponging), and they can make amendments (which are usually good because most of the lords are some of the most leading figures in their fields.) and the government doesn’t even have to implement these amendments, if the government wants they can just ignore them. -another great thing about them being unelected is that around 36% of the HoL is made up of “Bypartisan” Lords who are not members of any party, meaning that they can think, vote and talk freely about any issue without fear of repercussions from the whips of there party. I’m definitely missing a few points here but this is just the ones I could think of now.
@@cdw2468 ooh I checked my politics notes from a while ago and remembered some more problems with a second elected chamber. -a second elected chamber would inevitably just turn into a second House of Commons, if we made the HoL elected what difference would it have to the House of Commons? The Senate and House in the US are different because one deals with fiscal policy and the other deals with general policy. But what difference would this hypothetical chamber have to the HoC. -the other big problem is that while the HoL does have issues (lack of ethnic and religious representation and being oversized and many of the lords don’t turn up and hereditary lords) these are all issues which can just be fixed with adjustments and minor reforms, not scrapping the House of Lords all together -The House of Lords is the textbook definition of a intelligent and technocratic government body, which we need more of in the UK and most of the members of the House of Lords to great work independent of the partiality of politics.
@@byunbaekhyun2283 oh yea, that makes sense, our bi cameral system is pretty bad so i get not wanting to further integrate it and just drop it entirely
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 It’s 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
“and the Tories” 💀
Hahahaha I wasn't expecting that ending 😂
😂😂😂
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 it’s more expensive and time-consuming to invest in than renewables
@@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 😅
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
@@MariamPassionfruitthats because it has been overregulated to death
To be clear: giving junior doctors our 35% pay restoration (not a rise) all at once, would cost just over £1bn once tax and national insurance is taken into account. The government has spent £3bn fighting us.£1bn 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 £3bn 1-off vs £1bn/annum in perpetuity.
I’m not saying it’s right, just highlighting that it’s still a lot cheaper…
@@mjrc123 Hmm should we scrimp on healthcare practitioners though? Doesn't seem wise.
@@RichXVIII Answer: no we shouldn’t.
It's just greed really. Doctors make insane amounts nowadays with locum work etc. pure greed from the doctors.
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
@@enjoysilence4146i mean... So?
If you have 1000 houses that are each 1000£ 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 500£ a month.
Over all.. cheaper rent for the same amount off houses, at the same quality.
Those figures at 1:02... they can't be right, can they? That's terrifying
It’s called Capitalism
Yep, welcome to life under capitalism. An average base worker at tesco's is making £10,000.64 a year, while CEO Ken Murphy saw his pay more than double to £9.93 million in the 2023/2024 financial year (£1.64 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.
@@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 £15 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
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 😂😂😂. How can people be this illiterate lol
Check that they made a correction. It’s 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!
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...
@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 ‘performing hypnotherapy to enlarge breasts’ barmy
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.🤦
I'd rather vote green however LD have the majority in my area so they have my vote
@pignbird4007 don't vote because you thinks it's the majority please
@@WigSplitters It's not a rash decision I promise, Liberal democrats have some very good policies which I agree with
Liberal Democrats are responsible for putting millions of students in debt, so an entire generation will never trust them, much like the Conservatives.
I can't stand tactical voting. I don't care who you align with most, but please just vote for the party you want in power.
I would be retiring or working less in 5 years, and I'm curious to know best how people split their pay, how much of it goes into savings, spendings or investments, I earn around $250K per year but nothing to show for it yet.
predicting short-term market movements is extremely difficult in reality. It also essentially requires the investor to be right twice: they must perfectly time both their entrance to and exit from the market.
That is exactly the reason I stopped taking advise from RUclipsrs; in the long run, I only end up with a jumbled collection of stocks and bonds. Whereas all I needed to earn over $350k in less than two years was guidance from a true market expert.
I've been considering but haven't been proactive. Can you recommend your advisor? Could really use some assistance.
Angela Lynn Schilling is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment.
I looked up her name online and found her page. I emailed and made an appointment to talk with her. Thanks for the tip
I find it funny people will shit on the greens for their economic policy then say to vote reform 💀
The truth is, that in the Uk, we are very right wing economic and socially. Reform is more attractive to right wing ideology.
@@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 isn’t 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).
I’m Sorry, HOW MUCH OF A WAGE DISPARITY IS THERE AT TESCO?!
Average base worker at a supermarket is on £12ph. 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.
@@JackChurchill101that's assuming no paid leave
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
@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.
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.
It’s also because tactical voting is on so many people’s 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
Nuclear energy should be no1 on their list. 🙄
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.
@@petergerdes1094so who should be making that call? People who only care about money? Gimme a break
@@Steven-ly9ei yeah they're already against solar panels because they are too efficient and lower energy prices
Only party talking about wealth tax and reduce inequality. They've got my vote.
🤣🤣🤣
@@Nat-uw4fs what's funny?
@@morpheus1586😂😂😂
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 £25 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.....
@@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 it’s not aligned with woke narrative of everyone being awarded for with a the same size trophy 🏆for participating.
@@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 can’t help but call it woke because that’s what your favorite talking head told you to do
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.
@@JackChurchill101 Well tough there is, and that means we need HS2.
WHY THE FUCK do they want to ditch nuclear power ? 😡
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 £64-65
By the same metric, onshore wind is £21-£59 and offshore is £52-£115
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.
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.
@@simony2801 It literally states it targets over 10m and 1bn of wealth. That's hardly everyone.
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, there’s a group in the greens literally called “Greens for HS2”, so there’s some disagreement now
@@MariamPassionfruitIf nuclear is not as profitable, why ban it? Seems contradictory at best
Also, a £500 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.
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 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
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 😊Also 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.
@@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..."
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@JMK948 Trump and Le Pen holding all the cards if the Greens get their way oh the irony.
You’re talking about the Green Party of England and Wales, surprisingly you didn’t point that out.
I think it’s 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 I’m pretty sure 90% of the population knows that the House of Lords is in Westminster, thousands of people get tours there everyday. Don’t piss on my with your stream of consciousness, you are not clever.
Pretty obvious.
You missed Northern Ireland when you were listing devolved governments
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 Party’s Peace, Security and Defence Policy Working Group)
Wow didn't realise pay disparity was so high. I'd support making it more equal.
It's not
@@User-he6zd Source?
@@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?
I will be voting Green for the first time. Always been Lib Dem before that.
I hope the country wakes up and doesn't simply tactically vote either red or blue.
Vote for the party you want, people!
I've told everyone that I'm sick of voting for the lesser of 2 evils and will never do that again. I voted Lib Dem.
@@MayronWoW thank you for voting for who you want to win.
@@MayronWoW WOW 😮
What is the pay ratio number actually referencing? How many execs?
Some quick maths. 833,333 x £20,000 salary suggests c. £16.7bn in exec compensation. Tesco's total revenue is around £60bn with an operating margin of around 5%, leaving £3bn 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 £17.5k. Tesco CEO had total compensation of around £10m last year. Thats a ratio of around 570:1. The ratio relative to the average was quoted as around 430.
Source: Guardian.
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 😂
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.
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 don’t pay NI. Investors don’t pay NI. Landlords don’t pay NI.
It hits low asset median income people the most, doubly so for anyone living in a HCOL area
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
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 £15 an hour
Cloud cuckoo economics.
I wish the US had a viable party like the greens or lib-dems.
Our democrats are honestly a little to the right of labour and it frustrates a lot of us
This feels like to me that they know that they will not win, so theyre just having fun with it.
i think the lady even said when they where saying the manifesto on tv that they know they won't win they just want a couple of seats.
They want to support Ukraine whilst getting rid of nuclear weapons. That’s genius 😂😂😂😂
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.
Geothermal power is a whole lot better than nuclear. It just needs a lot of drilling very deep down.
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 £15 minimum wage would be nice, it's unrealistic and would be terrible for the economy.
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.
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 isn’t an issue. This with more renewable would be fine.
The taxing of high costs assets has me, I’ll be voting green 👌🏼
A dream manifesto for those who have no clue on how economy works ....no matter who wins British economy is taking a dive
I see the Greens in my country aren't alone in being idealistic and clueless economic stewards who simply ignore how impractical and unimplementable the majority of their policies are.
You know that Truss was a conservative?
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.
I think it would “help their electoral fortunes” if they got this message out there. They need to be where people who think like this are. They’ve got all these “radical” ideas, (in reality just unpopular with tabloids and right-of-centre broadsheets), but they’re no good if no-one hears them.
Lib Dems: Spending monayyyyy 📈
Greens: Spendin' HELLA BIG MONAYYYYYY 💰💰💰🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
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
@@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.
@@Mogojoegotubebetter to overspend than to consistently give tax cuts to societies least deserving (the leeches who own everything)
Greens have been wasting lots of paper, had the most leaflets from their party!
Really helpful and balanced insight into the Green Party policies. I'll definitely be voting Green this time, as I find they have the fairest and most positive ideas to help improve life for all of us in the UK.
How do you think £15 minimum wage to all ages go?
Lmao imagine thinking abolishing Trident and nuclear power is a good idea.
@@joew9608 I agree those parts are flaws but the rest of the manifesto is stronger than literally anything being offered by the other parties
@@joew9608I don’t think those are good ideas but for what we have, Greens overall are the best in my opinion and even though I may disagree on those issues their economic platform is by far the one that promises the most hope for the UK public
@@ConfydeMusicThose are not just flaws, that’s basically getting rid of the uk’s biggest and basically only effective deterrent. And the fact they were opposed to remaining in NATO until 2023 tells me all I need to about them.
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?
I'm voting green because the are the closest match to my point of view. Its crazy that the greens are more left than labour. Our entire countrys political system is broken. 😢
In most places on the planet, the greens are usually left of the main left-wing party, but to the right of open communists.
Theres nothing crazy about it.
The greens have always been left of Labour…..(though left/right isn’t really a fair way of discussing it, as Greens obviously have environmental aims overriding many of their ideas.)
@@The_Midnight_BearSo, Socialists?? It’s like nobody acknowledges that right of Communism is Socialism lol…
Ugh you are lost
@@martyrx3436 Usually eco-socialists, but also more populist social-democrats.
I think this manifesto is great, but eliminating nuclear power is utterly stupid.
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 don’t stand in much constituencies. I know the Workers Party are standing in a lot more, but still not really nationwide like Labour, Tories, etc
@@theBASE00 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.
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.
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.
@@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 😂
@@Steven-ly9ei£15 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
The Greens would make Liz Truss premiership look stable. The markets would tank any aggressive borrowing, spending, or tax rise.
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 🧐🧐🧐"
Always thought they were a bit more like an orange- named after a colour.
Yeah because they calling for the removal of the state 😂
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
@@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?
So I've seen TLDR explaining the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and now Green manifestos. Is the Reform manifesto next I take it?
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!
@@Tannhauser62 much less hassle? if you watch the tv station that shows palement most of them are a sleep at the meetings. not only that they get summer off and in that time get paid enough to buy a big house and all there fancy meals are free.
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.
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
If you believe in these policies, vote Green! A larger vote share for the Greens will show the Labour government that we need to take inequality and the climate emergency seriously.
Annoyingly, the Tories losing so hard will give Starmer such a powerful majority it wont, unless there are historic voting shifts. He’s already made it clear he hates left wingers and wont allow them.
The best we can hope for is Reform seriously upsetting things, if they can indeed get the upset they want then hopefully the call for PR becomes too strong for even that stubborn pighead Starmer to ignore.
Look. If there was preferential voting i would put Greens 1. But sadly we only have first past the post so I’ll be voting strategically, sadly.
4-day work week; ending exploitative executive pay; stopping water companies polluting our rivers, wealth tax, rejoin EU to boost the economy etc. What's not to like?
The best humans are💚
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.
I wasn't very happy with the way the Green Party behaved in Scotland. The only way I would vote for them in future is if they ditched their social policies and described themselves as a one-issue party. The Green Party should promise to improve the environment all the rest is dangerous wishful thinking.
DIfferent Green party in Scotland.
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 they’d do)
@@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 can’t take with them will be forced to abandon them or stay.
@@ProsecutorZekrom you dont deserve to vote
I'd argue that the SNP are the most pro EU party in the UK.
An interesting 180 from their initial position of being dragged into Europe by Westminster.
@@CB-fz3li where's your evidence?
@@mdog2501 It is well known that the SNP campaigned against joining the European Community., do a quick google.
IM VOTING GREEN 🗳️
… guess I’m voting green, they won’t get in but it sounds like our values align so I want to support them.
Please do a video comparing Greens and Lib Dems. They are pretty close together ideologically and I find it hard to separate them!
3:20 No way, these guys think human beings are lovey dovey, sunshine and flowers. NO WAY!
The industrial military complex will never allow Greens in this country.
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 don’t think a house fire is as bad as getting nuked. Doesn’t mean I want either.
I notice you are unable to qualify the word 'bad.'
Yes @@mrakronyahoo
Green Party manifesto is only one that comes close to fixing our problems
This is bonkers.
Enforcing a pay ratio will drive businesses to incorporate elsewhere.
A wealth tax will cause people to move assets elsewhere.
It would work in the extreme short term but will ultimately result in tax being paid in other countries instead of our own.
They won't win more than 3 seats so it's nothing to worry about anyway.
@@oliverleonard7730 comment aged like fine wine
One thing I’ve never understood about Greens is their complete open door immigration policies. I can’t help but feel they should be rebranded as the “Grey Party” because their policies would see every green area in this country covered in property
This was a good laugh.
I voted Green for the first time today.
Some of these ideas are really impressive.
Living in one of the few constiuencies where the Greens could win, I am happy my vote for them will count
Honestly they've gotten my vote as they're quite the only truer left party in the UK
And even if I see the main issue of not investing in Nuclear energy or in high speed rail networks (The HS2). Which makes me hesitate
They're the ones who seem quite competent to do stuff that most young and worker class Brits want to happen:
- Nationalisation of energy, sewage and rail companies
- Major investment in green energy (I still think they should consider nuclear)
- Reduce the inequality stuff
- Embracing preferential vote
I know this is just their manifesto, but they seem competent enough to do it, although they need to do a series of laws and act reforms to do so. (Town Meeting and Planning act)
I disagree with their ideas on phasing out nuclear reactors but overall this is the best manifesto I've read. I will be voting for the greens.
Phasing out nuclear reactors? Didn't they learn from Germany which is now using more gas and coal than a decade?
@@kevinh4869 well why don't you tell me one thing you disagree with and why
@@edwardharris2388 This manifesto seems to be made by college kids who where is the political science section.
@@2531Prasad Tell me one thing you disagree with it and why
More Hope and Change! Not like that other lot. YAY!!
Money printers go BRRRRRRRRRRR!
Found the CEO ( or bootlicker)
@@UnequalSardine you are nuts if you think the green manifesto wouldn't bankrupt the country
@@UnequalSardineyou dont really understand economics, do you?
@@markojovanovski3372 yes I do. You don't though do you old chap?
most economist are atleast centre-left, it is bad for the economy to have wealth inequality because the rich dont spend their money. Reagenite economic policies have been tried and destroyed the middle class and most economist (except for the once paid of by the billionares) agree that it doesn't work
These guys do well until they come to Income tax. Raising the rates on people who are already paying 40 or 45 percent tax is just messed up. £50k/year doesn't get you that far in a city like London, and increasing taxes on those people is just cruel
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.
5:01 “Public expenditure can only be expanded as far as the economy has the capacity to absorb it without triggering dangerous levels of inflation.”
_Finally,_ at least one party in the UK is saying something sensible about public spending, rather than addressing the usual, economically illiterate “Where is the money going to come from?”/“How are we going to afford that?” “concerns.” I’m _really_ glad TLDR highlighted that point. Other news media would do well to highlight it as well (but they probably won’t).
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
Have the Greens given up on UBI?
Greens = watermelon party, green outside and red inside.
I wish I could vote Green and have it be meaningful, telling Supreme Leader Starmer to move left, but the Tories losing so badly will give him such huge undeserved power, and he is so arrogant and dictatorial that its pointless.
The tragic thing is, my best hope is Reform screwing with the results so badly that PR becomes unavoidable.
As a member of the Green Party and also someone who ran as a Green councillor (and lost to the tories) I really like this manifesto, I just wish it was a bit more passionate about rejoining the EU and I wish that it would drop the opposition to Nuclear and drop those AWFUL House of Lords reforms.
what don’t you like about the HOL reforms? american here, just curious
@@cdw2468 this is gonna be a fairly long answer but here it is:
When I studied politics at College I was part of the debate club, and once we debated exactly this. I I was arguing why we SHOULD get rid of the House of Lords and I kept loosing the arguments until I realised that it was simply because I was wrong.
Basically, the greens would want to replace the HoL with what is effectively a Senate (similar to what you have). And this would hugely damage the effectiveness of the HoL because;
- The House of Lords are unelected, which sounds like a bad thing but when you look into it you realise this come with far more benefits than negatives like how they are not under the Whip of the party that they are a part of which means they don’t need to be afraid of being punished for going against the government or shadow government, they also don’t need to worry about being voted out for unpopular opinions, and it means they can say what the authentically believe without worry of being demonised by the media or their “constituents”.
-The House of Lords are currently Appointed rather than elected, which means that they get where they are based on merit, not charisma or populism or their party’s popularity. That said I do believe that politicians like the prime minister shouldn’t be allowed to put people in the HoL and it should instead be decided by an independent House of Lords appointments commission.
-Another good thing about the House of Lords is that even though they are unelected, the constitution means that because they are unelected they don’t actually have that much power, they cannot create laws or bills and they cannot stop laws or bills, they are only allowed to delay legislation (up to three times, this is called ping ponging), and they can make amendments (which are usually good because most of the lords are some of the most leading figures in their fields.) and the government doesn’t even have to implement these amendments, if the government wants they can just ignore them.
-another great thing about them being unelected is that around 36% of the HoL is made up of “Bypartisan” Lords who are not members of any party, meaning that they can think, vote and talk freely about any issue without fear of repercussions from the whips of there party.
I’m definitely missing a few points here but this is just the ones I could think of now.
@@cdw2468 ooh I checked my politics notes from a while ago and remembered some more problems with a second elected chamber.
-a second elected chamber would inevitably just turn into a second House of Commons, if we made the HoL elected what difference would it have to the House of Commons? The Senate and House in the US are different because one deals with fiscal policy and the other deals with general policy. But what difference would this hypothetical chamber have to the HoC.
-the other big problem is that while the HoL does have issues (lack of ethnic and religious representation and being oversized and many of the lords don’t turn up and hereditary lords) these are all issues which can just be fixed with adjustments and minor reforms, not scrapping the House of Lords all together
-The House of Lords is the textbook definition of a intelligent and technocratic government body, which we need more of in the UK and most of the members of the House of Lords to great work independent of the partiality of politics.
@@cdw2468 they prolly want a unicameral system with only the lower house, like indonesia and NZ.
@@byunbaekhyun2283 oh yea, that makes sense, our bi cameral system is pretty bad so i get not wanting to further integrate it and just drop it entirely