Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[bobzmyunkle]

I can ‘return’ to Israel, Palestinians can’t. What’s the word for that?

Michael Rosen.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

'In my view, all political parties in the UK should do everything they can to support the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine'

Andy Burnham

Should this have been in the hypocrisy thread?

 

[Ian H]

'In my view, all political parties in the UK should do everything they can to support the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine'

Andy Burnham

Should this have been in the hypocrisy thread?

It's code for not being too hard on the poor Israelis.

 

[First Aspect]

It's a massive issue, way beyond solar farm policies.

The Green Party seek votes from the electorate but won't tell them what their policies are - that is madness and that the Party can't see that madness just compounds their being unsuited to Government.

He's done. This week has shown how woefully out of his depth he is.

Firstly, and true to form, he is vehemently selling a paper thin argument that he couldn't express a view or debate the Zionism resolution, because he needed to be campaigning. In a by-election campaign he was clearly not going to win, based on the feedback he said in the same interview that he was getting on doorsteps. It is also absurd to imagine that "door to door" campaigning in the time it would take him to get to and from Brighton, say something to cameras during a short debate and vote on it, would influence the by-election. If anything, it would have helped his campaign.

Secondly, there's his position on Gaza and Israel/Zionism itself, which is a complex geopolitical issue that is beyond his capabilities as a supposedly strong communicator to actually articulate. As far as I can tell, based on him repeatedly asserting that Palestinians don't have "the same rights" at the moment, and his unwillingness to support a two state solution, is that he seems to think is that there is a one state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace and harmony.

It is hideously naive, "Imagine all the people..." level stuff, but not completely out of character for the Green party, since they are as a bunch fairly idealistic. But he didn't actually say it. Or couldn't actually say it. And nor did he really say anything else.

This leaves the listener able to conclude that his one state solution is actually to give Palestine back and let jewish people live safely in enclaves elsewhere. New York and Golder's Green I suppose? He has inferred, if you are minded to take that inference from his words, that Israel in its current form has become an apartheid state and, sorry chaps, but you had your chance after that slight holocaust thing, and you blew it.

He has so fumbled the messaging, it is neigh on impossible to figure out what he believes.

Thirdly, he has utterly misread that his party conference was hijacked, and is doubling down on the egalitarian way that the Green party works. In turn he's seeking to try to square the circle by trying to support bits of the resolution that he also wouldn't have voted for.

The rest of the Green party leadership has figured out that the party structure is that of a commune and is not fit for purpose, because they let some racists in by mistake. They've also started to realise that Zach Polanski isn't very intelligent.

 

[briantrumpet]

He's done. This week has shown how woefully out of his depth he is.

Firstly, and true to form, he is vehemently selling a paper thin argument that he couldn't express a view or debate the Zionism resolution, because he needed to be campaigning. In a by-election campaign he was clearly not going to win, based on the feedback he said in the same interview that he was getting on doorsteps. It is also absurd to imagine that "door to door" campaigning in the time it would take him to get to and from Brighton, say something to cameras during a short debate and vote on it, would influence the by-election. If anything, it would have helped his campaign.

Secondly, there's his position on Gaza and Israel/Zionism itself, which is a complex geopolitical issue that is beyond his capabilities as a supposedly strong communicator to actually articulate. As far as I can tell, based on him repeatedly asserting that Palestinians don't have "the same rights" at the moment, and his unwillingness to support a two state solution, is that he seems to think is that there is a one state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace and harmony.

It is hideously naive, "Imagine all the people..." level stuff, but not completely out of character for the Green party, since they are as a bunch fairly idealistic. But he didn't actually say it. Or couldn't actually say it. And nor did he really say anything else.

This leaves the listener able to conclude that his one state solution is actually to give Palestine back and let jewish people live safely in enclaves elsewhere. New York and Golder's Green I suppose? He has inferred, if you are minded to take that inference from his words, that Israel in its current form has become an apartheid state and, sorry chaps, but you had your chance after that slight holocaust thing, and you blew it.

He has so fumbled the messaging, it is neigh on impossible to figure out what he believes.

Thirdly, he has utterly misread that his party conference was hijacked, and is doubling down on the egalitarian way that the Green party works. In turn he's seeking to try to square the circle by trying to support bits of the resolution that he also wouldn't have voted for.

The rest of the Green party leadership has figured out that the party structure is that of a commune and is not fit for purpose, because they let some racists in by mistake. They've also started to realise that Zach Polanski isn't very intelligent.

There's an interesting article by John Harris on their predicament

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-polanski-green-byelection-holborn-st-pancras

The party’s former leader Caroline Lucas and the longstanding Green activist Rupert Read are about to publish a mini-manifesto titled Climate Popularism: a guide to “breaking the grip of rightwing populism through a new politics of crisis resilience”, to be formally launched on 15 October. Written before the antisemitism meltdown, it rather minces its words about Polanski’s project, but makes it pretty clear why things have now gone wrong. “Some observers have wondered whether this new eco-populism has at times been a little too quiet about the ‘eco’ part,” Lucas and Read write. “On the doorstep, at least, this may be an understandable strategy … [But] as recent heatwaves have made abundantly clear, the salience of climate impacts will make adaptation concerns a doorstep issue before long.”

Lucas and Read make the case for “centrally funded, locally appropriate action to adapt neighbourhoods, infrastructure and ways of life, to prepare for the broad, cascading impacts of human-triggered climate change”. They propose a domestic retrofit programme that would entail a lot of “secure green jobs”. They also write, very perceptively, about an “exhausted majority” tired of our shrill politics, and suggest the “depolarisation” of the climate issue in the face of plain facts – which sounds like the direct opposite of how Polanski operates. There is talk of a politics of “courage, hope, love of place” – and, crucially, a decisive turn into the use of citizens’ assemblies. This is the kind of turn the Greens should undoubtedly take – but even if they do, they will now be starting in a deeply troubled and weakened state.

Also Ian Dunt. Both of these writers express the need for there to be a strong Green Party, and their frustration that it's been derailed.

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/holborn-and-st-pancras-byelection-dd0

A strong Green voice also makes sure that there is a threat to Burnham from the left. Without it, he can fixate, as Starmer did, only with the Reform threat to his right.

All of these things are bad, and all of them are perfectly avoidable, if you didn’t have a bunch of useless tankie daffodils passing anti-semitic motions. The Greens were on the verge of being involved in the serious business of politics, with decent enough polling in the right historic circumstances to potentially establish a foothold in government. Now they are pissing it away.

And quite apart from any electoral consideration, progressive voters deserve a party that is willing to speak openly and without embarrassment about progressive values. Labour will not unequivocally stand up for immigration. It is continuing a campaign against trans people. The Lib Dems are marginally better, but too embarrassed and lacking in confidence to show any kind of resolution on these issues. The Greens had the freedom and the incentives to do so. And now - boom - the only credible and unapologetic progressive voice is once again taken over by anti-semitism. Abysmal. A farking embarrassment.

 

[AuroraSaab]

John Harris and John Crace are amongst the few writers I miss now I rarely read the Guardian.

"...if you wanted to completely wreck the Greens’ successes in all those places, you would bin that approach and accelerate exactly what Polanski has facilitated: .....the entry into the party of embittered former Jeremy Corbyn supporters and assorted ultra-leftists, bringing with them a flimsy, pious gesture politics".

Could Polanski not have done a proxy vote/online vote to vote on the Zionism conference resolution?

 

[Psamathe]

Could Polanski not have done a proxy vote/online vote to vote on the Zionism conference resolution?

As Party leader, why didn't he arrange to appear by video link. 10 minute interruption to his knocking on doors (maybe meaning 1 less doorbell rung) and appeared by video link from his phone (mobile data) to big screen in conference hall). Cheap, easy, effective and fulfilling his role as party leader as well as not impacting his campaigning.

That they didn't even try such things to me indicates either they didn't want to (ie Polanski just avoiding the issue) or didn't even look for alternatives (indicating they can't think of easy cheap solutions to get round constraints and that shows lack of capability).

 

[briantrumpet]

Polanski got there, albeit after the horse had bolted. (Graun)

 

[First Aspect]

Paragraph 1 and 2 aren't necessarily consistent with one another (the word "also" suggests that he supports the premise of the resolution). The amendments he wanted were about paragraph 2.

So what is his position, exactly? I still don't know.

 

[briantrumpet]

Paragraph 1 and 2 aren't necessarily consistent with one another (the word "also" suggests that he supports the premise of the resolution). The amendments he wanted were about paragraph 2.

So what is his position, exactly? I still don't know.

It needs the context of the previous paragraph for the "also" to make sense (even if it does suggest fence sitting):

It has been difficult knowing how to approach this imperfect motion, because its substance chimes with my understanding of Zionism as the ideology that underpins the displacement and genocide of Palestinians. This is something I share with many other Jewish people, including Stephen Kapos, the holocaust survivor who was one of those supporting the motion.

At the same time, Zionism is not easily defined, and I know for many Jewish people it is bound up with identity, safety and belonging. In my view it’s not the job of a political party to tell people what to believe – and a narrow focus on definitions is neither desirable nor strategic.

There are also elements of the motion that I don’t agree with – such as dictating the future shape of a state in Israel and Palestine. While many people understandably see the idea of a two-state solution as standing in the way of concrete action to end the unbearable status quo, I believe it is not up to the British government – let alone the Green party – to decide the future for Israelis and Palestinians.

Before the vote, I made it clear that there were amendments I would like to see made, and I am disappointed that those did not pass.

 

[First Aspect]

It's a marginal improvement, but on balance I still think he's doubling down.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's a marginal improvement, but on balance I still think he's doubling down.

Whatever, I think it's too little and too late, and it's now a question of how the Green Party undo the damage and how they guard against this kind of hijacking Polanski is dealing with. It'll be interesting what the Corbyn-Your Party-ZiR team do next.

 

[Ian H]

Shock horror! Politician holds a nuanced position.

 

[Psamathe]

Polanski got there, albeit after the horse had bolted. (Graun)

View attachment 17726

So what is his position, exactly? I still don't know.

To me it's meaningless. As you (First Aspect) say, it doesn't say anything about where he stands, where he stood, why he didn't see the motion as significant, why he didn't attend, why he didn't speak, etc. Nor what he's going to do about the motion now, what he's going to do about such motions being "passed" by such a small number of members, etc.

Complete failure of Leadership, complete failure to think ahead, etc..

 

[bobzmyunkle]

To me it's meaningless. As you (First Aspect) say, it doesn't say anything about where he stands, where he stood, why he didn't see the motion as significant, why he didn't attend, why he didn't speak, etc. Nor what he's going to do about the motion now, what he's going to do about such motions being "passed" by such a small number of members, etc.

Complete failure of Leadership, complete failure to think ahead, etc..

I think he's covered all that if you're interested to read them. I'll ask him to send you a personal email on all those issues if you want.