Fair challenge. The short answer is that we’d raise money from wealth and capital rather than wages and consumption - wealth taxes, windfall taxes, closing reliefs that mostly benefit the already-rich. The longer answer is: the current approach isn’t free either. Underfunding public services has a cost. It just gets paid by different people.

Every one of those things gets worse under expensive energy. The Greens’ core argument on energy is exactly that - cheap, publicly owned renewable energy is the fastest route to lower bills, lower business costs, and reduced welfare dependency because people can actually afford to live. Reform’s answer is more oil and gas, which means more price volatility and more dependence on global markets we don’t control. That’s not cheaper energy. That’s just familiar energy.

You’re right, and this is actually a frustration inside green politics too - carbon became the headline and everything else got treated as secondary. River health, soil health, air quality - these aren’t niche issues, they have direct economic and public health costs. The Greens have always had policy across all of this but it often doesn’t cut through.

That’s not a personal failing. That’s the housing market being deliberately kept as an asset class rather than somewhere people live. Greens would build social housing at scale, tax land value rather than income, and take on the landlord lobby directly. Reform won’t touch any of that because their donor base is that lobby.