Sexism/other issues in the Green party England & Wales - Discussion Thread 3

[fromorbit]

Zack Polanski is making things bigger yet again so another thread needed.

Well things have developed rather a lot since the start. ZP started out as being another sexist guy in politics - no shortage those around, but he thought he could take it to a new level and he proved he could do it.

The Green threads have followed his rise from the start of with the Hypnoboobs scandal and much more. There is also:

Mothin Ali as deputy Leader who clearly doesn't believe in trans thinking, but cleverly sidesteps round talking about it, has always had a issues with encouraging racist violence and is now encouraging people to sue the Green party if they attempt to stop them saying racist stuff.

The other deputy Rachel Millward represents the posh rich faction of the Greens who manages to sounding like Reform when opposing Asylum Seekers in her area, but at the same time saying we are too harsh on immigrants in general. Obviously she also doesn't believe women are a thing. Yet she is the least crazy when violence is concerned compared to ZP, and Mothin.

Hypnoboobs scandal got worse recently when it became clear from BBC footage ZP actively believed in the Hypnoboobs thesis rather than being tricked into it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9enygvezeo

Alongside all this there is constant ongoing attacks on biological reality from the party in interviews and in policy.

Now in the last week or so after a longstanding spate of antisemetic rhetoric from some Greens during the election campaign and ZP downplaying it. We have synagogues, schools, ambulances attacked, two Jewish people dead and ZP berating unarmed police for risking their lives in fighting a violent killer who was still armed with a knife things have come to a crisis point.

The Greens are becoming ever more sinister with dozens of candidates sounding like they are seventies NF supporters with comments about uppity women and Jewish power. The huge drama over a crazy motion which they were trying to pass against Israel at conference alongside a motion to prevent women having sports will surface again their September conference.

It seems likely after next week The Greens are going to be running a bunch of councils which doesn't bode well after their antics in Bristol.

Yet there is hope, in Bristol women are fighting back_: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5455053-bristol-council-is-about-to-be-sued_

The fight back from Green Women's Declaration, ( https://www.greenwomensdeclaration.uk/ ) continues and the court cases against GPEW from Emma Bateman and Shahrar Ali are developing, both getting through legal delaying tactics as they move to trial. Gardening is needed. These cases if successful could be dramatic in their impact.

First thread - where you can follow the rise of ZP and lots of other scandal
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5328986-greens-internal-drama-warms-up

Second Thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456759-sexismother-issues-in-the-green-party-england-wales-discussion-thread-2?

Note the Scottish Greens which are a separate party to the Green Party England/Wales have their own thread for all their sexist drama. They split off because GPEW didn't hate biology and women/gays enough at the time.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313420-scottish-greens-being-sexist-again?page=1

Emma Bateman

8h
I am proud to be a founding member of GWDeclaration. It is hilarious that TheGreenParty has teamed up with GoodLawProject.

They thoroughly deserve to go down together. GWD are awesome women, and this is going to be popcorntastic.

This is amazing news for Green Women's Declaration a win in court is pretty much guaranteed. GLP have never won a trans case.

Could be useful case law for future cases as well.

I share their enthusiasm but win or lose the Fox Basher gets to keep his 10% on anything he raises, which is a crime in itself. Having worn out their welcome in the 'Transophere' the GLP is now ploughing the rich field of the Omnicause idiots.
He's an ambulance chaser, and anyone who can't see that is either thick or so blinded by ideology that he could probably sell them a bridge in Brooklyn.
A fool and their money are soon parted.

Oh bollocks web viewer is killed by Musk too

It's a SLAAPs case now then.

Its not about winning. It's about being obstructive and bleeding others for money to stop claims being made against organisations like the Greens because even if they lose the cost is so high to pursue.

Burchill on the Greens drop in the polls and much else

We don’t need to be afraid of the Greens any more
Which brings us back to that morning-after hall of mirrors each featuring a niche kind of craziness – or, as we know it, the Green Annual Party Conference. This year’s event, taking place in Brighton, naturally, will be the most exciting conference season in decades. One of the cheaper kinds of thrill – a carny sideshow to the real business of seeing the two main parties slug it out comfortingly once more – will be seeing every kind of Green nutter come out of the woodwork and strut their stuff. Now they’re no longer a threat, we can simply get out the popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show. Let the carnival of freaks commence!
https://spectator.com/article/we-dont-need-to-be-afraid-of-the-greens-any-more/

I love the way JB writes but I'm not ready to say we have nothing to fear from the Greens yet, I think those fighting for women's rights in Bristol may disagree with her as well, their zombie army can do a lot of damage yet.

Agreed lots to worry about. Not to mention the Scottish Greens as well.

However the extremism of the Greens is speed running more opposition as well. Plus they by losing court cases may help the push back further down the line.

The possibility of more self sabotage is something to hope for though. The Greens conference could be an epic example of that.

Cut through on green party conference proposals hits This Morning.

One motion is proposing rationing meat. Also limiting foreign travel. General consensus: middle class people with too much to worry about

The Greens now just seem to be about lifestyle and student identity politics....nothing much to do with ecology or trying to live more in harmony with the planet.

OMG 😂

Should we start feeding human beings to the animals to save our sanity. All in favour raise your hand. 🖐

Rationing meat and restricting air travel are legitimate, if contentious, environmental policies.

That's what the GP is for.

True. At least it's getting attention

They are both ridiculous suggestions that are completely unworkable. If that's what passes for serious environmental policy then we're cooked.

If they're going to campaign to save the world, they need to come up with something that will indeed save the world, not hand flapping gestures trying to shove genie's back in bottles.

If you think limiting flights is 'unworkable', what do you call uncontrolled wildfires?

I mean, what are your suggestions for drastically reducing CO2 emissions?

Are you just hoping someone else will 'save the world'?

If any policies to lower emissions will be attacked as 'ridiculous', yes, we really are cooked.

The problem is, as exemplified by Kier Starmer, the people making these policies mean 'but not me' - THEY'LL still be jetting off on hols, to big fun international meetings all the time, and eating meat, it's just the poorer than them they want to stop doing all of this.

Why should they get to ponce around the world to 'climate conferences' in all their hypocrisy (there's absolutely no reason you can't have these conversations over video call, they managed it during covid) whilst your average family who works hard all year can't go to Spain for one measley week for a bit of sun and fun and togetherness. If you wanted a real environmental policy you'd ban government international travel (which costs the taxpayer a fortune) in order to prioritise wellbeing of citizens and ability to fly for holidays.

It's the opposite of having any humanity.

And that's before you get to the economic impact. Or the suicidal economic impact of being the only country doing this in a world where China is on top. Driving your population into poverty for luxury beliefs.

And eating meat is actually a feminist issue as many women are iron deficient and eating meat is really the best way to increase iron (from experience) without having side effects of one kind or another.

I'm all in favour of banning govt international travel.

We don't and can't base our policy on what China does. That would be daft.

And fwiw, China have been forging ahead on cutting CO2 emissions.

I'm not anti meat eating, btw. But conversations about farming and consumption are going to have to be had.

Do you know how many people now live in this country that regularly take many fights to their home country every year and it's not just this country, it's every country now.
There is no way you can just limit flights, without it having a serious impact on the lives of tens of millions of people.

The Greens are the party that is preaching open borders and come and go as you please Internationalism. How do they square that circle with restricting air travel.

Yes, but none of this is looked at in the round across the whole lifecycle. If it was looked at across the life-cycle, evidence-based and social and health impact tested, fine but it's not. I bet eating meat is the best and most environmentally friendly way of increasing iron when you look at the production chain and CO2 emissions of iron supplementation or infusion.

If you want to reduce CO2 what you shouldn't do is basically tax the poor (who already have the lowest emissions) whilst the rich carry on as usual. That's simply PR not real policy.

All the venues claiming they're going 'paperless' to save the environment when it means everyone's going around using their much more environmentally friendly (over the whole life cycle, taking into account very environmentally unfriendly data centres) mobile phones, which will not just do what's needed (e.g. a map for a zoo, which you could have on fixed boards around the zoo instead) but have pop ups, ads, data harvesting endlessly. Because all of this is totally unregulated (as well as unwanted by end user) with no consideration of environmental impact.

A lot of UK environmental policy is simply about moving C02 emissions out of the UK, creating the same if not more C02 globally, and making UK citizens poorer and causing significant health impacts up to and including death in the process (we have some of the highest energy bills in Europe, so some people don't put on their heating when they need to for their health).

The green party has literally fuck all knowledge or understanding of science (with some notable exceptions), they don't even know what a woman is FFS. How can you make workable environmental policy around complex issues such as climate change when you don't even understand the basics of human reproduction.

And when it comes to air travel, what would happen if everyone was banned from flying on holiday is that several companies would collapse. Many people would lose their jobs, the government would then have to step in and pay benefits to them. These are social impacts but also health impacts (being poor not good for your health) with an increase in CO2 emissions from the NHS to treat these iller, poorer people. It's never as simple as the headline policy.

Economically the cost of the flights remaining would soar, meaning a much bigger burden on the taxpayer of all those trips abroad by civil servants. Unrest in the population would grow as people would rightly feel unhappy about this.

Resilience to rising energy costs also would fall. I already know people who are burning wood they scavenge to heat their homes because they can't afford heating costs. Burning wood releases more carbon dioxide (CO₂) per unit of energy produced than fossil fuels, so if everyone has to start doing this on a regular basis (going back to medieval times) then that could well produce much more CO2 than a single yearly flight to Spain.

Yes, indeed. Banning air travel would have impact.

Restricting tobacco sales will also have had impact on those working in the industry.

At some point, we will have to look at the cost/benefit analysis.

Burning wood releases more carbon dioxide (CO₂) per unit of energy produced than fossil fuels, so if everyone has to start doing this on a regular basis (going back to medieval times) then that could well produce much more CO2 than a single yearly flight to Spain.

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely absurd argument.

How is an annual holiday to Spain comparable to or connected to heating one's home?

Everyone wails about climate change and 'somebody has to do something', but seems few people are willing to change anything.

Being entitled to a yearly jaunt to Spain is not a hill to die on, I'm sorry.

I agree that shifting of CO2 emissions elsewhere shouldn't happen.

But again, if you agree that humans are contributing to climate change, how would you address that?

What would you be willing to change to help?

This is what bugs me about the Tory so-called energy policies. (I'm not saying you are a Tory, btw, nor that there's anything wrong with being a Tory, it's just something I've noted)

They attack net zero, but don't actually make any suggestions for how to lower emissions themselves.

If someone accepts that climate change is happening and at least partly impacted by human action, then what human actions are we willing to change to address the issue?

It feels like people just won't stop setting fire to their shoes and complaining that their feet are too hot.

Nope, but the point is, if everyone's poorer and has to use wood to heat and cook again then that will massively increase CO2 from where we are now.

To tackle climate change properly you need to look at mitigation as well as adaptation and you need to evaluate across the whole life-cycle and consider unintended consequences, human nature and human need. If people can't afford an electric car, they can't afford it. Unless the government buys it for them, they can't get one (I'm still not totally convinced electric cars are better for the environment across their whole life cycle, we'll see, people are making money from this push and the fact it's been branded 'environmentally friendly' too).

Also, so many rural locations now have regular electricity outages - I've had several in the past few years. This, of course, can be life threatening. Those with petrol cars did better in our last ones because they could still evacuate. Fortunately, they could take those with electric cars that had run out of charge with them. When there are no petrol cars, they'd be stranded (electricity outages is also why people are looking increasingly to using wood burning stoves).