The Green Party's key manifesto pledges include:-Bringing forward the UK’s net zero target and investing billions in wind, solar & home insulation
-
It's worth putting numbers on the #GreenParty's plans for a wealth tax:
Creating a Fairer, Greener Economy - Green Party
Real hope.Real change. Green MPs will fight for an economy that delivers security, wellbeing and a better quality of life for everyone, as well protecting our environment and enabling us to tackle the climate crisis with the ambition and speed it demands. Privatisation has failed. Dividends are paid to shareholders while infrastructure is run into […]
Green Party (greenparty.org.uk)
It would be 1% annually on assets over £10m and 2% annually on assets over £1bn. Very few people reading this would have to pay it; I certainly wouldn't! But there are several other tax increases that would affect rather more people. They're on the page I've linked to. For example, if you earn more than £967 a week (as a typical software engineer does) then you'd pay more National Insurance.
@CppGuy @kibcol1049 nobody needs to have a billion pounds !
-
@JustinMac84 @Disputatore @kibcol1049 Actually, the people who are the biggest threat to us at the moment not only control the technology behind 'our' deterrent, but also have some of theirs here...
-
Well it's a deal breaker for me.
Anyone that nieve has no business being in Parliament
️ -
@CppGuy @kibcol1049 nobody needs to have a billion pounds !
@sean You don’t even need to use an exchange rate to be correct for Canadian dollars as well.
-
@simonzerafa @kibcol1049 We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent at the moment, nor have we for some time. We are merely the Off shore base of the US nuclear deterrent. At the moment France looks a more reliable shelter if we really feel we need one.
@epistatacadam @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 We do have an independent deterrent, the warheads are ours, but the delivery system is leased from the US costing us a bloody fortune to maintain.
France kept it's own nukes entirely separate from everyone else after lots of US pressure to 'save money' by standardising.
For the record I'd bin them off. Only Ukraine has ever chosen to do it but we're not sharing a land border with Putin.
-
@kibcol1049 I understand the principle of ditching nuclear weapons, unfortunately we don't live in a world which is compatible with that principle. If I voted in the UK, I would only vote Green if I felt they wouldn't be in a position to enforce that item of their manifesto.
@kibcol1049 I've seen the discussion around winning nuclear wars. I think that by now it is obvious that a nuclear war is unwinnable. That's not what nuclear weapons are for. They are for deterrence. They tell the other side that they cannot win. Not that we will win. For example, would Putin try to invade Ukraine if they had nukes? I don't think so.
-
@kibcol1049 I've seen the discussion around winning nuclear wars. I think that by now it is obvious that a nuclear war is unwinnable. That's not what nuclear weapons are for. They are for deterrence. They tell the other side that they cannot win. Not that we will win. For example, would Putin try to invade Ukraine if they had nukes? I don't think so.
@kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.
Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?
-
@kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.
Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?
@Disputatore @kibcol1049 also are they actually ‘our’ nuclear deterrent or are they just US assets sometimes parked in Scotland? Would someone like Trump let us use them? Would we be forced to use them if he said so?
-
@Disputatore @kibcol1049 also are they actually ‘our’ nuclear deterrent or are they just US assets sometimes parked in Scotland? Would someone like Trump let us use them? Would we be forced to use them if he said so?
@markmason @kibcol1049 those are all excellent questions.
-
Oh well. They were doing well until the last item.
@simonzerafa @kibcol1049 Personally, I’d like to save a lot of money simply by dispensing with the little tin god that has never been used and can never be used.
It works for Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and everyone else bar France. What do you think would happen if we joined them? -
@simonzerafa @kibcol1049 Personally, I’d like to save a lot of money simply by dispensing with the little tin god that has never been used and can never be used.
It works for Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and everyone else bar France. What do you think would happen if we joined them?...and would anyone actually believe us if we said we no longer had them?
-
@kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.
Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?
The question for the UK is the independence of the nuclear deterrent, the extortionate cost and the dependency on the US, both in terms of paying for their systems and agreeing to host US armaments on UK territory which makes the UK an automatic target in any war.
An interesting perspective on this is whether any adversary would actually believe that the UK didn't have nuclear weapons even if we announced that we didn't, because the capability will always be there.
-
@markmason @kibcol1049 those are all excellent questions.
@Disputatore @markmason @kibcol1049 The warheads are ours, the Tridents leased from the US, the US has no control over our nukes, the US can't turn them off, indeed nobody can once they leave the launch tube that's part of the design.
Of the 250(ish) warheads we have an undisclosed number are always at sea and ready to fire when the government gives the order.
If the US cut off spares and maintenance programmes it would take 10 years for it to have an effect on the Navy.
I'd still disarm
-
@epistatacadam @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 We do have an independent deterrent, the warheads are ours, but the delivery system is leased from the US costing us a bloody fortune to maintain.
France kept it's own nukes entirely separate from everyone else after lots of US pressure to 'save money' by standardising.
For the record I'd bin them off. Only Ukraine has ever chosen to do it but we're not sharing a land border with Putin.
@naturepunk @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 if we can't launch them unless the US says we can because our warheads are at some undefined depth in the ocean then effectively we don't have an independent deterrent.
-
Oh well. They were doing well until the last item.
That's a really good one.
We just pay for the damned things. USA won't let us fire them...
-
The question for the UK is the independence of the nuclear deterrent, the extortionate cost and the dependency on the US, both in terms of paying for their systems and agreeing to host US armaments on UK territory which makes the UK an automatic target in any war.
An interesting perspective on this is whether any adversary would actually believe that the UK didn't have nuclear weapons even if we announced that we didn't, because the capability will always be there.
@ReggieHere @Disputatore @kibcol1049
We would be better off and safer working with France than USA on defence (and there have been decades of working together since WW2 and the Cold War)
-
@simonzerafa @kibcol1049 Personally, I’d like to save a lot of money simply by dispensing with the little tin god that has never been used and can never be used.
It works for Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and everyone else bar France. What do you think would happen if we joined them?That's the whole point.
Both sides know what the results would be from a first strike or attempted invasion etc.
So these things don't happen. It's called Deterrence.
In an ideal world no-one would have or need them. As you're probably aware we cannot trust our allies at the moment let alone our enemies.
-
@kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.
Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?
@Disputatore
I think the main difference is we're not in walking distance from Russia... they'd have to cross a lot of land to get here and I suspect the locals would be somewhat irked.
@kibcol1049 -
That's a really good one.
We just pay for the damned things. USA won't let us fire them...
That's not my understanding of how an independent system would operate but clearly such above top secret information is widespread on Mastodon.
-
That's not my understanding of how an independent system would operate but clearly such above top secret information is widespread on Mastodon.
@simonzerafa @Walrus Can you imagine closed source software to launch missiles where the supplier has not pre-programmed the inability to accept certain coordinates? Mainland USA for example?
