Why would mumsnet leftists vote Green over reform?

[Wizeman]

Now I have your attention

What are the substantive political reasons for voting for the Green Party over Reform UK?

Please avoid responses based on personality or tone (e.g., claims that one leader is “nicer” than the other). Instead, I am interested in clear policy-based arguments and ideological reasoning.
Reform UK is led by Nigel Farage, a businessman with a long-standing role in national politics. The Green Party is currently led by Zak Polanski, whose professional background includes work in theatre and as a hypnotist.

With that in mind, I would welcome serious explanations focused on policy positions, governance approach, economic strategy, and long-term outcomes, rather than personal character assessments.

Nigel Farage chortling at Starmer speaking about the dangers of Grok should be plenty of warning to voters in the UK - unless they are paedophiles or misogynistic cunts.
The millionaires leaving…? Well Farage should join them…

What about the many sole traders and small limited companies?

@FrightfulNightfullHe isn’t here anyway , I hear he lives up Trump’s arse. I heard on Radio 4 news yesterday that he now makes a million a year from non political work.

The vast majority of immigrants also pay more into the NHS than the equivalent British worker. Look up the NHS surcharge. It’s paid in addition to paying NI and other taxes.

I would like to see proper reform of the tax code to incentivise business creation, work and growth. That’s the way to build a society that can pay for itself, not just heaping more and more tax on people.

UK already has a low corporate tax rate and it costs nothing to register with companies house. Reversing Brexit will incentivise business creation, work and growth. Leaving the EU was an act of economic suicude. So many British businesses have folded or contracted because of the added costs of Brexit.

Great answer. Thanks.

But the Green Party deny that biological sex is real and important. That’s surely going against science and undermining everything they say about climate change?

I’m a former member of the GP who left due to their gender woo woo madness and discriminatory treatment of many, many female members.

I would never vote reform, but I also won’t vote Green again until they stop discriminating against women.

Frankly,although I lean towards being gender critical, I would rather deal with the occasional man in a public loo than be under 2m of water. Or have anyone else be under 2m of water.

Surely it is pretty obvious why the lefties on mumsnet would vote for a left wing Green Party rather than the right wing Reform.

Plus they might allow the breast enlargement hypnotherapy be covered on the NHS.

I’ve heard a lot about this breast enlargement hypnosis recently in regard to Zack polanski. In some ways if that’s the worst they can dig up on him it’s actually quite reassuring. Also does that actually work ? Or is it just a case of you have altered perception of breast size? Asking for a friend 😂

Please do not vote Green. They’d give away women’s rights straight away, given they think some women have a penis.

And also the only time they’ve held any power they fcked the city Brighton up. It’s still not recovered from the greens catastrophe.

Not that I’d vote reform or Labour either.

Given how pro-drugs liberalisation the Greens are it is probably just a difference in perception.

I would be a fool to vote for a party that would remove my rights and my families. Our rights to a private life, to be treated humanely, freedom of expression, justice and accountability, freedom from forced labour or slavery, right to a fair trial, right to life, not to be discriminated against, right to free elections, right to education, right not to be tortured, right to marry and have a family and the list goes on. What fool would vote for this by voting Reform, plus I don’t trust them in their plans to replace this with a watered down version.

Do you think that you only have rights as a British citizen because of the ECHR?

It’s not the only source of rights in the UK, but it’s a hugely significant one.

Before the Human Rights Act (HRA) incorporated ECHR rights into domestic law, people had far fewer enforceable rights and far less ability to challenge the state. The right to respect for private and family life was effectively new in UK law, bringing protections against intrusive press behaviour, limits on police surveillance, and stronger control over personal information.

Freedom of expression existed only in a weak, patchy common‑law form that could be overridden easily and offered little practical protection. The HRA also strengthened rights to protest, expanded fair‑trial rights to tribunals and regulatory bodies (not just criminal courts), and developed rights around bodily autonomy and the right to life beyond simply prohibiting unlawful killing.

Crucially, the HRA gave people a direct way to challenge the government in UK courts and obtain remedies when rights were breached. Without the HRA or the ECHR, the remaining rights framework is much narrower and far harder to enforce, leaving far less incentive for government to respect those rights beyond political pressure.

Its an absolute deal breaker, for me - I wouldn't even consider voting for a party that would take us out of the ECHR (unless it were to join a similarly robust replacement body).

And although it's not my primary concern, there would likely be a significant economic cost, too. If the UK were to leave the ECHR and start infringing on human rights (even "only" the rights of non-citizens), that would further erode our standing in the world and invite negative international trade consequences, possibly even sanctions and alike.

Put simply, if we leave the ECHR we would still have enforceable legal rights against other private citizens - but we would have thrown most of our rights that a currently enforceable against the government out the window, because some of them can be inconvenient when held by non-citizens.

All of that could be enshrined in UK law separate to the ECHR, could it not? Or is only Europe capable of protecting everyone’s human rights?

@TeenagersAngst

Not in a particularly meaningful sense, no - not without a constitutional revolution.

The UK's constitutional structure is based on the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wants, and no court or other body can overrule or invalidate those laws (and no Parliament can bind a future Parliament).

This setup means we can never have a strong, domestic check on Government actions, and have few guaranteed rights.

By comparison (to a country that seldom participates in international courts), the US has a written constitution that provides for three equal branches of government - putting the judiciary on par with the executive and legislative branches, and an enshrined Bill of Rights (which is supreme law and does bind the executive and other branches).

In the US, in order to amend the Bill of Rights you need the approval of:

• two-thirds of the Senate,
• two-thirds of Congress, and
• three-quarters of state legislatures.

In the UK, Parliament can simply repeal on a simple majority in the House of Commons (the House of Lords can be bypassed).

All to say, for UK citizens to have meaningfully permanent and enforceable rights (in relation to the state), that can only happen via an independent supranational court.

Anyone who tells you a UK Bill of Rights could come anywhere close to replacing the ECHR is misleading you.

To recreate anything close to the rights protections the ECHR currently provides, the UK would need a full‑scale constitutional overhaul.

Step 1: Draft a written constitution.

This means abandoning Parliamentary Sovereignty and replacing it with a system of entrenched, “supreme” constitutional law and real checks and balances. That alone is a multi‑year project requiring public consultation and agreement from the devolved nations.

Step 2: Create a comprehensive Bill of Rights.

It would need to be detailed, enforceable, and constitutionally entrenched (not just another statute Parliament can repeal).

Step 3: Parliament would have to vote to limit its own power.

A Constitution Act would have to explicitly end parliamentary supremacy and elevate the new constitution above ordinary legislation.

Step 4: Build the new constitutional machinery.

This means establishing a constitutional court, rewriting large parts of the legal system, and implementing the structures the constitution requires (another multi‑year process).

Step 5: Implement the Bill of Rights under the new constitutional order.

Only then could it function anything like the ECHR framework.

In theory, Parliament could do all this. In practice, it would consume an entire term (or more) and require a government willing to prioritise rebuilding the state over pursuing any normal political agenda. We're firmly in pigs-flying territory.

And even after all that, without an external supranational court, UK citizens would almost certainly have weaker rights enforcement than they do under the ECHR today.

I get that its a complex subject that requires a detailed understanding of our constitutional structure, as well as alternative structures and the functioning of international court systems, so I don't mean to imply that Reform voters, or others who say the supporting leaving the ECHR, are "ignorant" in the general sense - but Farage (and others like him) do absolutely rely on people being ignorant of the state of human rights laws in the UK and the reasons embedded in our constitutional framework that make it near impossible to implement domestic equivalents.

I don't think many of the general public who say they support leaving the ECHR really understand the implications. To me, the general public voting for that would be a tremendous act of self-harm (far more so than leaving the EU, which was more about the economic challenges).

And - assuming you're on the other side of the political divide than me - consider whether you'd really want the next Labour government to be substantially unrestrained by citizen's legal rights.

And the fact they appointed over 100 candidates with those kinds of views in the first place isn’t any kind of red flag to you….? Why do you think those sorts of people are flocking to Reform, I wonder…?

Not necessarily a fan of Reform, but give me them over the unholy alliance between trans campaigners and radical Islam any day of the week.

I’m terrified of Reform. I truly believe my daughters are potentially more at risk from their views and policies if they got into power than from any kind of trans person in a female toilet or a terrorist. Have you seen the comments made by Reform about abortion for example? They will be stripping away rights and putting women at risk of serious harm .

In 2024, the party dropped or suspended over 100 candidates following revelations of offensive or racist social media comments

Just checked this - you have misreported. Around a dozen candidates were dropped because of racist or offensive comments - the rest were dropped/ replaced because they were unable to commit to the July 2024 election or inactive.

How many UK citizens seek protection from the ECHR vs non UK citizens?