“It’s well beyond anything ever tried under Jeremy Corbyn. The ultimate irony is the one closest to their policy is Ben Gvir who also wants one unified state rather than two states,” he added.
That’s a rather silly comparison.
Leading barrister Adam Wagner KC has also said there is a strong risk the motion, passed at the Greens’ annual conference this weekend, contravenes the Equality Act 2010.
Parties taking political stances are exempt from this sort of viewpoint discrimination. That’s the whole point of a political party. This is false.
Meanwhile, there have been growing calls for political parties to refuse to enter into any kind of coalition arrangement with the Greens, after senior Labour figures told The Independent on Monday that Andy Burnham should rule out any collaboration.
I think that the world may not be ready to hear “Zionism is Racism”, even if it is true. This comes at a rather bad time with the coming byelection, with a media frenzy mischaracterizing all of this likely to cause the Greens to lose votes.
I don’t think anyone here is going to object to calling Zionism racism. But is it possible, at all, for the Greens to be a little more… you know… politically savvy about this?
I reckon the leadership of the Greens is fuming their arses off. On the one hand it’s what the members voted on at the conference. On the other hand it’s like handing a grenade to everyone to blow them up with. It plays directly into the victim complex the right wing Israeli politicians have allowing them to justify their campaign of genocide. It also gives the party yet another media mess to manage.
Just a little bit amateurish for not a lot of gains.
I think it’s appropriately bold. Right-wingers will find fault anyway. People are tired of politicians being cautious and diplomatic all the time, and if you want that you still have Lib Dem and Labour. Meanwhile I’ve seen people say the Greens are just idealists who talk big, but they finally have a chance to show they walk the walk.
Reform is big despite multiple scandals, racism, etc. I think it’s fine to say “look, if you want someone similarly bold, but on the left side of the spectrum: Green can be that”.
How many of the Green leadership are landlords again?
Like that matters.
Most politicians are landlords.
Doesn’t change anything about their policies.
What is the E&W Green Party stance on landlords?
A motion passed at its party conference at the weekend called for the party “to seek the effective abolition of private landlordism” while backing building more council houses.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9zqzp44vo
The deputy leader of the Green Party, Mothin Ali, is linked to two buy-to-let properties, despite his party’s opposition to private landlords. Ali is the sole director of a company, which he set up and controls, that owns two rental properties in Leeds, bought in June 2022 and March 2025 - although he does not appear to profit from either of them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clykgxp754no
Scandalous, no?
So… What is this meant to be pointing out? That not every member is perfect, and therefore neither is the party? I don’t give a shit.
I’m not even sure I agree on their phrasing of the policy that is being discussed in this thread. Expecting perfection is just stupid though.
Overall, they align with my values and seem to intend to move things in a way that I think is good, and are also backing that notion up to a degree. That makes them a better party than the alternatives in my eyes.
That’s the deputy leader, not some random member.
Good that you don’t give a shit, you’re worth engaging with.
I still don’t get what your angle is here. All I get from this at best is they might not be perfect or monolithic. I don’t see why either case would be a deal-breaker. Those would be unreasonable expectations. And so I don’t care.
But okay, let me address the specific point you’re making. I’ll even make a concession: let’s say they were letting for profit and living purely as a landlord (patently false, even from just your quotes): what matters from a leader and representative is that they can put their own interests aside and work for the wants and needs of the people they represent. And I see no reason as of yet to say they wouldn’t be able to do that. They could be completely ready to give up their property. If not, then it’s a problem and needs to be addressed, but that’s not an issue at present.
Any party like the Greens has to be perfect to gain any chance at taking power. They’ve got the right and far right against them, the neolibs, enlightened centrists, center-left, the establishment, and the vast majority of corporate media all waiting for any sign of weakness.
All of that and they’re far from perfect.
Wait til you hear that the member who proposed the motion has maintained a “friendship” with an Al-Quaeda member serving a 40-year sentence. Own goals all around.
As it happens, it wasn’t one person who proposed the motion. Separate people in my local Green Party constituency came to me many months ago (before the previous conference, where the motion was filibustered) trying to get it off the ground.
It’s not agents, terrorists or a small minority of people plotting. A decent chunk of people wanted this motion to pass.
And out of all 700+ names, the party chose hers to be the most prominently connected with the motion. Not the smartest politicos in the cesspit.
