Natalie Bennett that was bad!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11431756/Green-Partys-Natalie-Bennett-gives-excruciating-radio-interview.html

The interview is like something from The Thick Of It.

EDIT: it seems strikethrough is not allowed in titles 🙁

Miliband is a pretty lucky guy.

I wonder if her name will become an epithet like her great uncle or whoever he was;

“Natalie Bennett! That was embarrassing.”

Is she married to Gordon Bennett?

I couldn’t listen, it just made me cringe.

What was the saying about Pi$$ Poor Preparation? Someone needs to tell her!

You can tell her inexperience as a politician. She tried to answer the questions.

If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.

/

Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance [7p’s]

You can tell her inexperience as a politician. She tried to answer the questions.

^This, “real” politicians answer with “What the real question is..”

From Twitter:

You wouldn’t want her negotiating with Putin, would you? Might as well send John Prescott.

Oh.

My 2p is that she’s done a bad job as a politician. Unfortunately that’s what she needs to be. If she doesn’t understand her parties policies and how they are costed she shouldn’t be in front of a microphone.

My 2p is that she’s done a bad job as a politician. Unfortunately that’s what she needs to be. If she doesn’t understand her parties policies and how they are costed she shouldn’t be in front of a microphone.

nah most party leaders dont have a clue, they are just better at bullshitting …………

“What the real question is..”

You can tell her inexperience as a politician. She tried to answer the questions.

This. No army of spin doctors and no attempt to derail the question into one she’d rather answer.

she’s done a bad job as a politician.

This, too, but in a good way. They are generally a bunch of lying weasels lining their own pockets.

Doesn’t sit well with our need for sound bites and quick fixes. Unfortunately Green policies are long term goals for a better society.

Unfortunately Green policies are long term goals for a better society.

I agree.

It’s good having long term goals but you need a succession of short term policies to get you there.

If you can’t articulate what you’re going to do in the short term why should people trust you with achieving what you aim to do in the long term?

If you can’t articulate what you’re going to do in the short term why should people trust you with achieving what you aim to do in the long term?

Don’t remember trusting any politicians, short or long term.

I think it is more La-La-Land thinking crashing into reality.

If you want to build 500,000 houses and you are asked how they will be funded you cannot say that you’re going to look down the back of the sofa to see if there’s some small change and some pixie kisses. You need to have sat down and properly costed and planned for the policies that you propose.

You need to have sat down and properly costed and planned for the policies that you propose.

Thing is that they have, she just didn’t know what it was.

They want to remove tax relief on private landlords which they say will bring in £5bn/annum and then spend £27bn over the life of a parliament building new houses.

Seems reasonable, it’s just a shame she couldn’t say it.

They want to remove tax relief on private landlords which they say will bring in £5bn/annum

Do private landlords really get £5 billion of tax relief per year ?

Do private landlords really get £5 billion of tax relief per year ?

Seems to be the case according to this:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2513229/Buy-let-landlords-profits-boosted-5bn-year-tax-breaks.html

And this one says £6.6 billion (plus another £9 billion in capital gains tax)
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/09/private-landlords-gain-26-7-billion-uk-taxpayer-generation-rent

I think 1/3rd of MPs are BTL landlords

so yeah sounds about right

A Freedom of Information Act request found that in 2010 to 2011, landlords deducted £13bn against income tax, at the upper end of estimations based on a 40 per cent tax rate, this meant £5.2billion in lost revenue. At the lower end, based on a 20 per cent tax rate, £2.6bn was missed out on.

So, somewhere between yes and only half of what was being claimed.

I hope my mortgage company only wants me to pay half of what we agreed I should when I elected to buy my house.

Does any of this matter in the final count though?

Green supporters will still vote green. Not enough to win more than a seat (or two).

So come election time they wont be able to make any difference to whichever party is looking for a coalition.

Or, her crap interview gets people talking and looking at their policy’s and more take notice – some of them end up voting.

(probably not though)

if they do abolish tax relief they won’t need to worry about building new houses and rents probably won’t rise. It would make BTL so utterly unprofitable that 90% of landlords would be forced to sell up. You’d flood the market with supply which would lower prices. Hey presto problem solved. You’d not raise any tax revenue apart from some stamp duty which you could then spend on replacing trident.

Absolute train smash.

We don’t need to worry about the impact of such policies from the Greens as they aren’t going to get elected. The interview just shows how thoroughly unprepared the Greens are and the reasons they have lost heir deposits in 25 of the last 26 by-elections they have fought.

The Greens cannot implement this policy. Deducting interest payments against revenues for tax purposes is a fundamental part of our tax law. If they tried to modify the law investors would immediately transfer the properties into companies. It would be a total nightmare to try and change corporate tax law and any attempt to do would significantly negatively impact business. If they did manage to do such a think the amount of rental property would drop materially and there would be a lot of homeless families complaining about things. What about all those people who need to rent out their house because they have been posted abroad or to a different location in the UK ?

The interview wasn’t anywhere as bad as I had feared. Natalie Bennett has always imo been extremely bad at dealing with interviews and questions, and not helped by that nasal colonial accent, she’s certainly no Caroline Lucas. The LBC interview didn’t seem much worse than her other previous performances imo.

Having said that I wouldn’t expect her to know all the facts and figures concerning every Green Party policy…..education, housing, foreign policy, transport, health, etc. why should she? She does need to learn how to deal with interviews though, and how to deflect questions in a more comfortable manner.

And the £60k build cost figure for a social housing dwelling which Nick Ferrari ridiculed as amounting to “a large greenhouse” seemed quite reasonable to me. It’s cheap but doable for large scale social housing imo. He was talking bollocks, not her.

I suspect that Natalie Bennett’s poor performance on LBC is less likely to have a negative effect on her party than a poor performance by Nigel Farrage would have on his party.

Green Party supporters are much more likely to support their party because they agree with the policies, while in contrast most UKIP supporters won’t have clue what UKIP policies are and support UKIP because Nigel Farrage has made them laugh on Have I Got News For You and/or they are impressed with the way he holds a pint of beer. For them presentation is everything – it’s important to them that a Prime Minister knows how to hold a pint of beer and eat a bacon sandwich, anyone lacking those vital skills stands no chance.

Green Party supporters

….will never be enough to win anything like the kind of representation in Parliament that The Green Party needs to become a significant political influence.

For that you need to have policies that you know, are more than just nice ideas; you have to be able to stand them up to scrutiny and questioning so that they aren’t just the shallow ‘presentation’ you deride Nigel Farrage for (not that I am any fan of his either).

The policies do stand up fairly well, but as mentioned they are long term and would need some pretty significant change. Something that doesn’t really fit with UK politics. She couldn’t do it 5 mins with a somewhat idiotic interviewer, but should have done better, though. I think the greens have already been a significant political influence at the local level but while they are still a way off getting power nationally, partly due to the system we have, they have been a political influence on the other parties.

If you are including land then you are least looking at £120k per home so it is more like £60bn for 500k dwellings.

There are other options that we could look at. Co-Op and mutual models of housing provision like they have in Europe and Canada the funding for this can come from pension funds underwritten by HMRC at about 3% of cost as it is very low risk. Pension funds are happy to take lower rates of return if the investment is low risk, bringing down the cost of housing compared to the private sector.

Green Party supporters are much more likely to support their party because they agree with the policies

Indeed. Policies not personalities[/url].

She’s not the first politician to mess up and she’ll not be the last.

Green Party supporters
….will never be enough to win anything like the kind of representation in Parliament that The Green Party needs to become a significant political influence.

I don’t think anyone, Greens included, is expecting to get much more than a few MPs, the odd council or council seat, in this election.

But, given what UKIP’s popularity has done to the policies of Labour and the Tories, what do you think they’ll do in the face of an increased Green vote?

If you are including land then you are least looking at £120k per home so it is more like £60bn for 500k dwellings.

London prices?

Round here, £140k will buy you a brand new 4-bed semi, on which presumably the developer is making some cash, so £120k per home for social housing seems rather steep.

Edit: near here but cheaper – 3-bed semi for £110k

But, given what UKIP’s popularity has done to the policies of Labour and the Tories, what do you think they’ll do in the face of an increased Green vote?

We can but hope. Say what you like about the maintstream political parties and process but what’s happening right now is a brilliant example of both a) democracy in action and b) why this is a self adjusting system that does actually work.

The role of these previously fringe parties is now to act to influence the more mainstream parties who have to respond and adapt because otherwise they will die out.

The fringe parties tend to be pretty extreme and as such, the majority of people won’t vote for them. But if you get enough support, while it may not be enough to win enough seats to hold the balance of power (or maybe it will) you win enough support to influence the policies of the mainstream parties.

What you’ll get is a more diluted version of those policies, made more mainstream and palatable to the masses, but then that’s a good thing.

I would like to see more social inclusion, but I certainly don’t want a party that’s going to start nationalising large parts of industry again. I would like to see more equality, but I don’t want to end up paying 50% or even 60% tax. I will happily pay more, but not that much more.

So we will wait and see. The Greens and UKIP are very likely to be the best thing to happen to British politics since we had a very successful and stable coalition government.

If you are including land then you are least looking at £120k per home…..

Not necessarily. Land cost unlike build cost is a huge variable, it wouldn’t be sensible to give an expected cost for land. The cost of one small plot can double, treble, quadruple, whatever, depending on where in the country it is, access, transport, whether it’s part of a much larger plot involving hundreds of other small plots, etc, etc.

Since where these 500k new dwellings would be wasn’t specified, not even what part of the country, you simply can’t assume a land cost.

What you’ll get is a more diluted version of those policies, made more mainstream and palatable to the masses, but then that’s a good thing.

Or something that looks a bit like them in a policy statement but in achieves none of the long term goals it’s supposed to address – or simply never appears.

Shows the importance of public scrutiny/freedom of speech. Once the fluffy and/or the dangerous/ridiculous are tested, they soon fall over. Its important to get this over before people make the mistake of voting for them in real time.

Worked with Salmond (just, although the fluff went down very well), is starting to work with Farrage and Bennett is struggling at the starting blocks.

At least Lucas is able to sound half credible.

On the one hand I wouldn’t want her to sound like a confident, deflecting, touch-point hitter.
But on the other, it would have been nice if she was armed with info like some of you have presented above.

She could have made the presenter look like the petty point-scorer that he was.

Or something that looks a bit like them in a policy statement but in achieves none of the long term goals it’s supposed to address – or simply never appears.

Sure but maybe that’s because the long term goals are unrealistic, unsustainable or just not that popular.

Christ on a bike that was bad. 😯

Rachel, stop lurking and come and play!!!

I think the standout point of this is that it was not just a politician making an utter hash of an interview, it was a party leader. No excuses I am afraid. If the party leader can’t give a decent interview (even if full of BS) then what are they doing in that position.

To be honest I know naff all about the Greens policy on housing but I could have blagged it better than her.

I think the overriding issue with the Greens is they mean well but their sums do not stack up. They would destroy the economy in a matter of months worth I’ll thought out policies targeting business, wealthy individuals without proper thought of the consequences.

Sure but maybe that’s because the long term goals are unrealistic, unsustainable or just not that popular

More likely they would require those in power to give up some of that power and most likely take money out of their pockets.

More likely they would require those in power to give up some of that power and most likely take money out of their pockets.

Is one way of looking at it.

The other way is that it would require people like you and I to vote for them.

I said this in another thread. I’ve read their manifesto and there’s no way I’d vote for them on the basis of what they stand for.