Are The Greens the new Raving Loony Party!

Currently, in the UK, sex work is technically legal - contrary to popular opinion (mainly influenced by cop dramas). Selling sex is not in itself illegal, but pimps, brothels and soliciting all are. While this sounds a reasonable compromise, it does mean that sex workers are often forced to work alone, or risk being arrested if (say) two escorts work out of the same flat.

With decriminalisation, by contrast, sex workers could work anywhere - even from their homes, or with other prostitutes - without breaking the law. Legalisation gives the employers the balance of power; decriminalisation returns rights to the workers, making them free agents.

I thought that taking money for sex was already decriminalised? Isn't it "Living on immoral earnings" - someone else's immoral earnings - that is ilegal? That gets brothels closed down so that girls have no communal base to take clients back to, and no madam on-site to oversee problem clients. It increases their chances of being hurt, and means more business is carried out in clients' cars.

If prostestution is decriminalised then sex workers can set up their own businesses without being exploited by pimps and controlled by drugs and violence. They could keep what they earn and pay tax on it.

Human trafficking, is illegal and would remain illegal.

"Brothels and all elements of the sex industry would be decriminalised."

Can anyone enlighten me as to the minutiae of this little gem? I couldn't open jen's link.
Is human trafficking acceptable to the Greens?

So it is unrealistic because there is no money? Except for the billions for "quantitative easing" during the financial crisis, and now it is reported that 1.1 trillion Euros is to be pumped into EU financial markets. Didn't Einstein say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Nobody really understands how our economics system works any more - including economists. There was a recent programme on Radio 4 about economics students (and lecturers) who are questioning the traditional economic models which they say are not fit for purpose because they bear no relationship to the real world.

Since our whole economic system seems to be completely mad and out of control, The Greens policies seem as good as any and certainly focus more on the wellbeing of the majority of the population than any other party.

I think there should be a proper debate about PR. When the AV vote was held (which most "experts" said was the worst kind of PR-type systems) there had been little proper explanation of how the system worked, what its implications might be, etc. Most people felt ill equipped to vote for something they didn't really understand.

What they gained was a disproportionate number of ministers compared to the number of MPs they have.

It was pushed into the undergrowth by holding a referendum that asked about the wrong system - one that wouldn't have been a success, as spotted by the electorate.
I know it was the deal that the LibDems had with the Tories, they abandoned one of their main aims and what have they gained?

Following the General Election in May 2010, one of the concessions the Liberal Democrats secured from the Conservatives as part of the deal to form a coalition government was that a referendum would be held on the AV voting system. It was, and was rejected by the majority of voters.

I know it's not PR, but that was the deal the LibDems had with the Tories when they formed the coalition, so saying it was pushed into the undergrowth is a misleading statement.

Well said Mishap.
Proportional representation is desperately needed in the UK and it used to be a main aim of the Liberal Party but they let the Tories push it into the undergrowth in this current parliament.

Natalie Bennett (Leader of the Greens) is Australian and the Green Party have done quite well in Australia.

There is no one party with whom I can agree on all their policies, and that goes for the greens too. But they should not be dismissed as loony without examining their policies in detail.

They are not going to get enough votes to form a government clearly, but if they held even a small amount of the balance of power their ideas would mitigate the potential excesses of other parties. I believe that would be very healthy.

Again, I would point out that for many of us when we come to vote we are effectively prevented from voting for the party we want by the need to vote for whoever will prevent the party we don't want getting in. This is not really democracy. In my constituency if I were to vote for the party I would like to see get in, we would finish up with Iggle Piggle all over again. No thanks - if he does get in, he needs his hands tying a bit.

Paid work less necessary. Yippee!

Where did you get your list from, Ana?

Have you read the manifesto, then, Ana? What specifically do you not agree with?
There's a lot more money in the country than the Tories pretend. We are the sixth richest country in the world.

I don't agree with a great many of them, durhamjen, mainly because there's no way the country could afford them, no matter how much they soak the rich.

I'd like to thank magpie123 though, for starting this thread. I had no idea how barking some of the Green policies were!

Well, my grandson keeps telling me I'm not old, TerriBull!

issuu.com/lifework/docs/minimaniissuu?e=7496317/7612527

Green Party mini-manifesto, just so you know the truth, rather than a garbled version.

Who wouldn't vote for Utopia?

I think they appeal to the young and idealistic who are disillusioned with the three main parties. My younger son tells me they are the only party he could contemplate voting for.

So which of those do you not agree with, Ana?

Soontobe, you sign up by voting the Green Party in in May.

Immigration; my sons' partners do not get to vote in the next election even though they have both lived here for longer than 18 years. I think they should be allowed to vote, considering the amount of tax and NI they have both paid.
Television; I very rarely watch prime time because it's full of soaps. I would like more educational programmes, like Winter Watch last week, which I did watch.

Who called it the Beyonce tax? Cheryl Cole (can't remember her new name) is in the local news because she is setting up a charity to help the Princes Trust. That's not a bad idea. Lots of people say they set up charities to give something back. This is just to "encourage" those who do not do so.
I cannot remember which paper it was in, but on last night's news roundup there was an article about a lot of footballers who signed up to pay less tax in various schemes when they were minting it, and now they are being chased for the tax as the schemes were illegal. They are all saying they did not know. Shame they thought it a good idea in the first place.

A more comprehensive list of Green proposals

Animal welfare: Measures would be imposed to encourage a “transition from diets dominated by meat” to vegetarianism. Factory farming would be banned.

Beyonce tax: So dubbed because a tax would be imposed on “superstar performances” to raise funds to support “local cultural enterprises”.

Birth control: To prevent “overpopulation”, the state would provide free condoms and fund research for new contraceptives.

Defence: Britain would leave Nato and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. Army, navy and air force bases would be turned into nature reserves.

Economy: The only way to a greener future is for zero - better still, negative – growth. It leads to less personal consumption.

Europe: Free trade with the EU bloc would end because new tariffs would be introduced to reflect the “ecological impact” of any import.

Gift tax: In order to “prevent the accumulation of wealth and power by a privileged class”, inheritance tax would also cover gifts made while the giver is alive.

Healthcare: The NHS would return to full government-run status with an NHS tax brought in to fund it. Assisted dying would be legalised, abortion liberalised and “alternative” medicine promoted.

Immigration: Because richer nations should not “protect their privileges from others”, border controls would be “progressively reduced”. Everyone living in Britain, whatever passport they carry, would have equal access to benefits.

Income: Everyone would enjoy an unconditional, non-withdrawable income of £71 a week “as a right of citizenship”.

Jobs: The idea of the £71 hand-out (above) is to help people take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. Overall, paid work should be “less necessary”: sharing and bartering would be encouraged.

Schools: Private schools would lose their charitable status and pay corporation tax. RI would be banned during school hours. SATS, early years tests and league tables would be abolished.

Sex and drugs: Brothels and all elements of the sex industry would be decriminalised. Trading and possession of cannabis would be decriminalised, too, along with possession of Class A and B drugs for personal use.

Television: The BBC would be bound to show educational programmes during prime time, giving them “equal precedence” to entertainment shows.

The monarchy would be abolished.

Most of the above seem to be pie-in-the-sky ideas, unfunded and appealing to a small minority of voters. I doubt whether many who say they intend to vote Green realise the full extent of the party's idea of how this country should be run.

monarchy#ixzz3Pl7CzHx5

I have been having a think about the citizens income.
If you dont have to be in work to get it, I think my husband and I would quite fancy that.
I should imagine it might appeal to about half the citizens in the country.
Where do I sign?

I believe the only council run by the Greens in Brighton has not worked terribly well.

The greens, going by the above policies, are definitely not for me.

Oh, well, Sky News. Definitely not biased, then.

Actually I have read it, and she said she's sure the queen would not need a council house. She actually owns quite a lot of the houses that the royal family live in.
Anyway, here's a quote from the article about the citizens income.

"The Green leader defended her party's economic policies, which would see the minimum wage rise to £10 an hour with a £70 a week guaranteed basic income.

She said half of the £280bn cost of the policy would come from tax, she indicated, with the rest made up of money already paid out in benefits."

Not really all that loony, is it?

The Greens also want to abolish the monarchy and have been kind enough to offer her a council house, should she run out of money!

news.sky.com/story/1414174/give-the-queen-a-council-house-say-greens

I know many voters will be cheering about this proposal, but I think they'll probably be outnumbered by those shouting 'Hands off our Queen!'.