Make climate impact assessment mandatory for all new legislation
Every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament has a financial impact assessment. It does not, as standard, have a climate impact assessment. This is an extraordinary omission given that climate change is the single issue most likely to affect every person in this country within the next thirty years regardless of their politics, income, or postcode.
I would propose a statutory requirement that all new primary and secondary legislation be accompanied by an independent climate impact assessment, modelled on the existing equality impact assessment framework. This would not give anyone a veto. It would simply ensure that the climate consequences of policy decisions are visible, documented, and part of the public record.
The objection that this would slow down legislation is not serious. We already assess financial impact, equality impact, and regulatory burden. Adding climate to that list is a question of political will, not administrative capacity. And the cost of not doing it is measured in flood damage, crop failure, and lives.
Freedom of movement should be a right, not a privilege for the wealthy
One of the consequences of Brexit that is rarely discussed honestly is that freedom of movement now exists only for people who can afford it. If you are wealthy, you can still live and work in Europe through investor visas, golden passports, or corporate transfers. If you are a young person who wanted to work in a bar in Barcelona for a summer or study in Berlin for a year, that door is largely closed.
Freedom of movement is a human right, not a market mechanism. The ability to live, work, and travel freely enriches individuals and societies. The Green party recognises that full freedom of movement may not be immediately achievable in the current political climate, but the direction of travel should be toward more openness, not less.
As a starting point, I would propose a youth mobility scheme with the EU for under-30s, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and a clear pathway back toward broader freedom of movement as trust is rebuilt.
The Green party's 'unrealistic' ideas are the only realistic response to reality
I hear this criticism often, usually from people who consider themselves pragmatic: the Greens have nice ideas but they are not realistic. I understand the instinct. Some Green proposals do sound ambitious. A four-day working week. Universal basic income. Net zero by 2035.
But consider what is actually unrealistic: continuing to extract fossil fuels at current rates while hoping the atmosphere will somehow not notice. Building an economy predicated on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. Pretending that the floods, the wildfires, and the crop failures happening right now are not connected to policy decisions made in this building.
The Green party includes aspirational targets precisely because they establish the direction of travel. Not every proposal is intended as immediate legislation. Some are there to pull the centre of gravity. And the policies that are intended for immediate implementation, insulating homes, investing in renewables, reforming agriculture, are not radical at all. They are the minimum credible response to the scale of the crisis.
The truly unrealistic position is pretending we can carry on as we are.
Establishing a framework for dignified end-of-life choices
The current parliamentary deadlock on assisted dying highlights a fundamental human rights issue. Access to a dignified end, free from unnecessary suffering, should not be a matter of political expediency.
We need to establish a clear, compassionate, and rights-based framework that allows individuals facing unbearable suffering, with a clear prognosis, to make informed choices about their end of life. This must be grounded in autonomy and respect for personal decision-making.
This framework would involve independent medical assessments and psychological evaluations, ensuring the decision is voluntary and well-considered. Funding could be integrated within existing palliative care budgets, reallocating resources towards comprehensive end-of-life support that includes these choices.
Implementing such a framework requires careful consideration of safeguards, but avoiding the issue does not protect anyone. It simply leaves people trapped between suffering and legal uncertainty, often forcing families into desperate, private decisions with no proper support.
The safeguards must be strict: repeated consent, independent review, cooling-off periods, and strong protections for disabled, elderly, or vulnerable people. But safeguards are an argument for designing the law carefully, not for refusing to design one at all.
A humane society should be brave enough to talk honestly about death. Dignity, compassion, and personal autonomy should not disappear at the final stage of life.
Tax the rich to save the planet
I'm proposing a new wealth tax to help fund the transition to renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions. We need this because climate change is already having a devastating impact on our planet and it's only going to get worse if we don't take drastic action. The richest 1% of the population are responsible for a huge proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, so it's only fair that they contribute to the solution.
The way it would work is that anyone with a net worth over 1 million pounds would be subject to an annual tax of 2% on their wealth above that threshold. This would raise billions of pounds in revenue that could be invested in renewable energy projects, energy efficiency measures, and reforestation programs. It would also help to reduce inequality by redistributing some of the vast wealth held by the richest individuals.
Why Are We Still Paying For Kids To Memorise Useless Facts?
Seriously, why are we forcing kids to memorise dates or the exact population of Botswana when they can look that up in two seconds on their phone? It’s like teaching someone to churn butter when we have electric mixers. We're not preparing them for the real world, or even for a world that’s rapidly changing because of climate impacts.
My proposal is to completely revamp the curriculum to focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability. Imagine instead of rote learning, kids are spending their time on projects that address local environmental issues, learning practical skills like coding or sustainable agriculture, and developing emotional intelligence. We need to equip them with the tools to navigate complexity, not just regurgitate information.
This shift would naturally lead to more engaged students and better-prepared citizens. It’s about fostering curiosity and resilience.
Streamlining Research Investment for a Sustainable Future
I agree that the current system for research funding is often too cumbersome. The sheer volume of bureaucracy can indeed stifle innovation, and I’ve heard from colleagues about the frustrating application processes. It’s vital we support our best scientific minds, but we need to do so effectively.
However, simply handing over large sums to top universities without oversight isn't the answer. We need a more strategic approach that prioritizes long-term impact, particularly concerning the climate crisis and global sustainability. Research into renewable energy, ecological restoration, and climate adaptation technologies should be at the forefront.
Perhaps a better model would involve establishing independent, expert-led bodies specifically tasked with identifying and funding high-impact research aligned with national and global environmental goals.
What do you think?
Vote on individual policies, adapt them, or write your own alternative. Good ideas should be tested.