AIBU - GREEN party - Zack Polanski

[hollyblueivy]

AIBU to consider voting Green even though I’m gender critical?

I stumbled across a couple of reels where he was interviewed by Carole (surname unknown shouty presenter) and he really kept his cool and spoke very well.

I’ve just gone down a rabbit hole on his instagram page and can see the Greens are surging and I agree with so much of what he says. It’s refreshing and positive and nothing like the doom and gloom and hatred that comes from Reform.

I am tempted to join them. To feel like I’m doing something to try to change and shape a better future in politics.

my concern is that I am gender critical and they are quite the opposite to me in views. Should I put this aside for the greater good?

AIBU to consider voting green despite this difference in gender critical view?

Of course you are being unreasonable. See Mothin Ali and Amy Challenor. The Greens hate women.
gcgreens.uk/suspended-expelled-resigned/emma-bateman-expelled/

The biggest tit is of course Zack/Dave Polanski. Whether he’s saying that he’s too good for wiping bums so that’s why we need immigrants, or cheering on terrorists who smashed a sledgehammer into a policewoman’s spine because she was arresting some silly little twat who didn’t like the reality of it. Or being the weapons grade misogynist he is over the trans issue to women in his party and outside it.

I left Labour after they cut the Winter Fuel Allowance & went after the farmers, I joined the Green Party after seeing a Party Political Broadcast by Z P, he actually gave me hope that there is an alternative to the 3 main parties & Reform. I would have been voting Green in the local elections as ds is our candidate, they can't make any more mess than Labour & the Tories have made of the country.

.

Don't be so simplistic

You’re going to have to do better than that, @MumofCandR

Vote for a conman? No. He made money from conning women into believing he could make their breasts bigger by hypnosis. He is quite literally a conman.

The Greens in Scotland have been a total disaster. Incompetent, anti-economy, anti-women's rights and generally batshit. The English Green party are defending numerous legal actions due to their continuing discrimination against gender critical members. I hope they go bankrupt before the next election.

I'm GC and I vote Green. Women will be most fucked over by climate change.

Someone being a vegan is not a good reason to make them PM ffs!

Agreed. It’s a shame because I really like a lot of what they’re saying.
But they won’t get in.

We should move on from the hypnotits thing. The journalist who asked him to do that has come out and explained what happened:

In 2013, a Sun newspaper reporter asked to be hypnotized by then-hypnotherapist (and future Green Party leader) Zack Polanski to increase her breast size as part of an investigation into unconventional body image techniques.
Here are the details regarding why this occurred and the context behind the story:

• The Goal was Body Image Improvement: The journalist approached Polanski to write a story about whether hypnotherapy could improve body image and confidence, with the specific, sensationalist goal of increasing breast size.
• Initial Refusal and "Experiment":Polanski has stated he initially refused the request, as it was not a service he offered. However, he agreed to do the session as an "experiment" after being pushed by the newspaper.
• The Session Focus: While the Sunarticle focused on the claim that her breasts grew by several inches over ten days, Polanski clarified that the session was intended to help with body image and confidence, not physical enlargement.
• The Result: The journalist reported in the article that her measurements increased, which she described as feeling "stunned". However, subsequent commentary suggests the results were likely due to behavioral changes rather than psychic, local tissue growth, with the reporter noting increased appetite/eating habits.
• Polanski's Apology: Polanski has apologized for his involvement, stating he was young and it was a mistake. He maintains he never charged for this specific session and that the article misrepresented the nature of his work.

The story resurfaced in 2024 and 2025 following Polanski's election as a leader of the Green Party, frequently used as a political attack by opponents.

Any woman who votes Green is like a turkey voting for Christmas

They hate women. they have shown this demonstrably, again and again. Why would you do it to yourselves and the rest of us?

We shouldn’t move on from the hypnosis thing, it’s unmovable-on-from and it’s so ridiculous and cruel that he doesn’t deserve to have people move on from it. I don’t care how many gay people he dances in clubs with, he hates women, and so do his party, the Greens always did

can't we just all self ID as men and miraculously not be affected?

if the greens get in we'll have no idea how women are affected by climate change because their definition of women is "adult human females and men who think they're women and not adult human females who think they're men"

good luck trying to design and implement any policies to improve the lives of women (only the adult human female kind) with that definition

I joined the Green Party briefly, back when it was concerned with environmentalism, and had interesting economic ideas. Back when I was concerned about the direction of the country 20 years ago. It is not now concerned with environmentalism at all, and the direction of both this party and the country have got to where they wanted to be: exclusionary and having recreated an impoverished nation of serfs. The Green Party’s modern representatives told me I was not wanted as a real biological woman who believed in biology, and refused to answer my questions about it, telling me I had no voice; and so I will not vote for them now. How can anyone trust a party claiming to be interested in ecology that cannot master basic biology? How should women vote for a party that tells them that they don’t exist and should not be allowed a voice? Talk sense.

Working from within is not possible if the likes of Caroline Lucas, respected by all, who had written about the decline of politics and the increase in difficulty of accessing public offices and politics, can it seems only watch the fall of her party and do nothing.

I would not trust them to follow through on the push to tax billionaires anyway, it’s another lie to them. It is a sound idea and the only thing that can save the country now. Billlionaires are not a declining group but a growing one, the numbers increased over COVID: and between them all the amount of wealth they are hoovering up is an increasing percentage of the total available. It is not earned and we need it back. But this modern group of misogynists liars and jokers are not people who will do anything positive for the country.

I was a member of the Greens about 12 years ago. I let my membership lapse and have had a few issues with them since:
-They used the phrase “men and non-men” in some party literature 🥴
-A woman I respected a lot, Molly S-C, stood in a marginal Tory/Labour seat and when I pointed out that she would probably be letting the Tory in by splitting the Left vote, she blocked me on Twitter. In the end, the Tory candidate won with a majority that was fewer than the number of votes cast for the Greens. It was important because it was Johnson and Brexit times. You need to defend your choices if you want to be in parliament, not block people for arguing with you (and I wasn’t offensive, nor persistent)
-Their manifesto at the last election was VERY light on detail and very full of what seemed to me to be wishful thinking.
-they have expelled people who don’t toe the line like Emma Bateman, but not just her. Again, fear of debate is not healthy in a political party.

ZP does speak well but i don’t believe him. I think he’s a bit full of BS.

Do the Greens even care about climate change anymore?

And legalising ALL drugs?

How much does drugs cost our economy? No amount of tax revenue will compensate for the financial, emotional and social damage caused by drugd. Especially when taken by children.

Well, the drug which costs society the most in terms of emotional and health damage, lawbreaking, vandalism and antisocial behaviour is actually alcohol, so I’m prepared to hear the arguments for legalising other drugs.

But the other points are fair enough.

Can you explain how a wealth tax would work in practice? How would it be implemented and how much would it actually raise? Would there be unintended consequences as a result?

Do the Greens have any other economic policies rather than redistribution?

I haven’t heard anything more than superficial soundbites from Polanski so would be interested in a more thoughtful discussion on the topic.

2% tax on over £10 million is a common formula that’s been suggested.

What ‘unintended consequences’ do you have in mind? Are they any worse than the intended consequences of impoverishing millions over the last 40 years? Of saddling youngsters with a lifelong debt they will never shift and destroying any possibility of them building their own lives and assets? Or of destroying the whole concept of working for a living because it is now not worth trying to work hard if you don’t come from wealth already, just to be chewed up and spat out into a world where you cannot make your own living? Of creating the plagues of drug dealing and prostitution for women which bedevil cities? Of destroying any concept of nationhood and social cohesion? Odd how these ‘unintended’ - or intended, in my belief - consequences just are not weighed in the balance compared to the risk of not being able to build another superyachts for the richest isn’t it? Do you not know how Britain used to work just a few short years ago and how much better off everyone was for it?

If you want plebs to fight a war for you in the future as seems likely you will need to stop abusing them because right now no one knows or values what they might be fighting for. There is nothing in this corrupt land of pre-existing capital for the young to risk their lives for. Look at Finland instead.

The cry is usually that the billionaires will leave. Really. That threat has been used so often it really is becoming a joke. They did not leave in the 1980s nor in Cameron’s time nor will they leave now. The recent multiple reports that they were leaving were proven to have all originated from a wealth firm with .vested interests. If they do they will lose their convenient source of wealth with no work nor consequence. Much of it is in land and assets.

As for other economic policies I do not know or care what the current Green Party claims to espouse. The old Green Party had a raft of interests against globalisation and in favour of supporting small and medium level enterprises. Surely the last few months have underlined that globalism leaves us vulnerable and we need national manufacture and supply chains. Obviously that is not compatible with open borders and the rest of the crap the modern group come out with. The name of their old book was ‘Green Alternatives to Globalisation’ by Michael Woodin and, yes, Caroline Lucas, if you want to look it up.

You won’t get any disagreement from me on alcohol. But IMO* *legalising all drugs because alcohol causes harm isn’t a solution, It's just adding more pressure to to a society that is already at breaking point. Alcohol abuse has a huge financial and non-financial cost to society, and the fact we can’t keep with up treating that particular legal vice, should ring alarm bells.

Also, all not all drugs are equal. Cannabis, cocaine and opioids may all be 'drugs', but the risks they pose/ the speed of dependency/ gateway to other drugs/ the health damage (developing brains etc) / the cost and duration of treatment, all vary hugely. Pretending they are the same is at best irresponsible and at worse just plain dangerous.

Zac isn’t interested in reducing harm. He is drunk on the prospect of the Greens having a real chance of power and chasing votes at the cost of wider society. Like alcohol, the price will be borne by the most vulnerable (users themselves, those harmed by criminality that will still feed supply) their families, friends, colleagues, employers and by LA's already at breaking point with spiraling social care costs.

Some countries have legalised drugs and have seen benefits but none have succeeded with the infrastructure and resource challenges the UK currently faces. If the money is not there for alcohol it's not going to suddenly become available for drugs.

@NorthXNorthWest no argument from me on your wider point: “Zac isn’t interested in reducing harm. He is drunk on the prospect of the Greens having a real chance of power and chasing votes at the cost of wider society. Like alcohol, the price will be borne by the most vulnerable (users themselves, those harmed by criminality that will still feed supply) their families, friends, colleagues, employers and by LA's already at breaking point with spiraling social care costs.”

I'm sat here waiting patiently for a decent part to vote for. More choices still means no decent choices.

How will that 2% be collected? What happens if it raises far less than envisaged or costs the Treasury money? How will the Greens plug the gap?

I don’t think billionaires will leave in droves (although they may, Norway lost money when they increased their wealth taxes a few years ago).

Your posts are very impassioned, much like Polanski’s speeches, but they are lacking in practical detail. Again, much like Polanski. Wealth taxes go down well in speeches because they sound great, what’s not to like? In reality, they are difficult to administer and can have unintended consequences such as raising less revenue than they cost to implement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

Agree. Zack has nothing of any substance to offer. The middle always end up paying whilst the rich get richer and many on benefits become more and more entitled.