Zack Polanski elected leader of the Green Party
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0d0d08jnjo
Ok with this
The Adrian Ramsay guy gave me Clegg/Starmer vibes.
Ok with this
The Adrian Ramsay guy gave me Clegg/Starmer vibes.
Ah, this 'll be the same Zack Polanski who (TBF, some years ago in a Sun newspaper sting) appeared to believe that he could increase a woman's breast size by hypnotizing her. Riiiiight.
He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
Hants PHer said:
Ah, this 'll be the same Zack Polanski who (TBF, some years ago in a Sun newspaper sting) appeared to believe that he could increase a woman's breast size by hypnotizing her. Riiiiight.
He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
They've always been marxists, it's quite nice this one is upfront about it. Was he literally trying to make boobs bigger or just persuading the woman that they had become bigger; only one of those things is plausible.He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
hidetheelephants said:
Hants PHer said:
Ah, this 'll be the same Zack Polanski who (TBF, some years ago in a Sun newspaper sting) appeared to believe that he could increase a woman's breast size by hypnotizing her. Riiiiight.
He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
They've always been marxists, it's quite nice this one is upfront about it. Was he literally trying to make boobs bigger or just persuading the woman that they had become bigger; only one of those things is plausible.He's a gay vegan who lives in Hackney. Just saying.
Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on “redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza." Crikey, I recall a time when the Greens worried about climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Polanski's views might mean an alliance with the Corbyn Fruit & Nut party, perhaps.
Pickled Piper said:
Should be entertaining. The Greens will occupy the same space as Corbyn's yet unamed group.
Not if they form a non-compete agreement with Corbyn's party. It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
Rivenink said:
Not if they form a non-compete agreement with Corbyn's party.
It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
What is this wealth distribution you mentioned, can you break it down for me? It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
Legacywr said:
Rivenink said:
Not if they form a non-compete agreement with Corbyn's party.
It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
What is this wealth distribution you mentioned, can you break it down for me? It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
We tax the wealth of the 0.1%, such that their share of the entire wealth is not growing significantly year on year. (causing everyone else's share to get smaller)
Then we inject it into the economy through various means. Perhaps by lowering everyone else's taxes a smidge. Or perhaps we can increase funding to chronically underfunded public services like the criminal justice system. Or maybe we can have a Navy with more ships than Admirals.
More money sloshing around the economy being used to buy and sell stuff. Just what a healthy economy needs.
Capitalism is most successful when it stays balanced, and too much wealth doesn't accumulate in too few hands.
Rivenink said:
Legacywr said:
Rivenink said:
Not if they form a non-compete agreement with Corbyn's party.
It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
What is this wealth distribution you mentioned, can you break it down for me? It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
We tax the wealth of the 0.1%, such that their share of the entire wealth is not growing significantly year on year. (causing everyone else's share to get smaller)
Then we inject it into the economy through various means. Perhaps by lowering everyone else's taxes a smidge. Or perhaps we can increase funding to chronically underfunded public services like the criminal justice system. Or maybe we can have a Navy with more ships than Admirals.
More money sloshing around the economy being used to buy and sell stuff. Just what a healthy economy needs.
Capitalism is most successful when it stays balanced, and too much wealth doesn't accumulate in too few hands.
Cold said:
Rivenink said:
Legacywr said:
Rivenink said:
Not if they form a non-compete agreement with Corbyn's party.
It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
What is this wealth distribution you mentioned, can you break it down for me? It's a shame, because the country really does need a bit of wealth re-distribution from the 0.1% wealthiest people to the middle classes.
What would the economy be like if the average family wasn't shopping in Lidl because they've got a tight budget.
We tax the wealth of the 0.1%, such that their share of the entire wealth is not growing significantly year on year. (causing everyone else's share to get smaller)
Then we inject it into the economy through various means. Perhaps by lowering everyone else's taxes a smidge. Or perhaps we can increase funding to chronically underfunded public services like the criminal justice system. Or maybe we can have a Navy with more ships than Admirals.
More money sloshing around the economy being used to buy and sell stuff. Just what a healthy economy needs.
Capitalism is most successful when it stays balanced, and too much wealth doesn't accumulate in too few hands.
Cold said:
I don't think you're describing capitalism there.
How so? Capitalism is simply an economic system where the means of production are privately owned (by capitalists) in venture of private profit (for capitalists).There's nothing inherent to that which excludes redistribution of some sort. And the evidence suggests that capitalism is at its most productive, most sustainable, most effective and most popular when its immense productivity is tempered by some sort of redistributive mechanism to prevent its own self-destructive tendencies and the damaging pooling of unproductive wealth.
"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..."
"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."
All quotes from Adam 'father of modern capitalism' Smith. He also wrote at length about how individuals seeking their own betterment and the invisible hand of the free market were far more ethical and effective than communal edicts and grand plans by authorities. But even he saw that capitalism could not function with too much inequality of wealth or power or opportunity. And that these would have to be managed by a moderating force.
Anyway:
https://youtu.be/1KsgxOrgbOA?si=SNxt-2EWVwkYCDJu
A good searching interview with Polanski on C4, for those who want to get a feel for where he stands and where he wants the Greens to be.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff