Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[First Aspect]

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.

Isn't politics about being able to explain things like this?

 

[Psamathe]

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.

If you could.
But subsequent to the motion passing I've seen him interviewed on TV, seen the deputy Party leader interviewed several times on TV, read the press and I havn't seen my points addressed and I'm probably watching far more attentively than most of the electorate. And I'm sure that were Mr Polanski to say "Yes, I'd love to appear on <whatever TV news broadcast>" they'd leap at the opportunity. Or give a face to face interview with virtually any newspaper reporter they'd print an article yet all I've seen are statements like the above quoted (plus plenty of mad claims about unrelated stuff from their deputy Party leader).

And I used to be a Green Party member, used (pre-Polanski) vote for them in elections, etc. so if I'd love to be convinced and probably one of those who'd be easiest to convert back.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

If you could.
But subsequent to the motion passing I've seen him interviewed on TV, seen the deputy Party leader interviewed several times on TV, read the press and I havn't seen my points addressed and I'm probably watching far more attentively than most of the electorate. And I'm sure that were Mr Polanski to say "Yes, I'd love to appear on <whatever TV news broadcast>" they'd leap at the opportunity. Or give a face to face interview with virtually any newspaper reporter they'd print an article yet all I've seen are statements like the above quoted (plus plenty of mad claims about unrelated stuff from their deputy Party leader).

And I used to be a Green Party member, used (pre-Polanski) vote for them in elections, etc. so if I'd love to be convinced and probably one of those who'd be easiest to convert back.

Here's one for you
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...embership-zionism-is-racism-row-b1300365.html

 

[Psamathe]

Here's one for you
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...embership-zionism-is-racism-row-b1300365.html

Didn't help

 

[First Aspect]

Here's one for you
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...embership-zionism-is-racism-row-b1300365.html

This is just a report on the fudge he came out with on the morning after his triumphant by.election defeat.

What he has said, broadly, is that the only thing he disagrees with is anything that suggests the Greens should dictate any political solution in that region.

So he has agreed with the substance of the motion, which means he agrees with it. And essentially says the solution is none of our business.

Setting aside that if you apply the logic of latter position, the motion itself is none of their business, this suggests to me that he's in favour of a one state solution.

 

[First Aspect]

Like I said, he's a gonner. Any whiff of antisemitism is political kryptonite. I don't honestly think the fact he's of Jewish heritage himself gets the party off the hook.

 

[Psamathe]

Like I said, he's a gonner.

If he clings on as leader he's still a goner but in that scenario he'll be taking the Party with him.

 

[Psamathe]

Definitely sounds like doubling down to me

Writing for the Guardian after his defeat in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection, Polanski suggests the party’s focus on defining Zionism has been misguided, even though he agrees with the substance of the motion. (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...en-party-overhaul-after-row-over-zionism-vote)

(My bold and italic)
Same article

Appearing to accept criticisms of his leadership over the issue, he admits his priority was “fighting a hugely consequential byelection for our party” and accepts that his own colleagues and members may feel “let down” by his decision to not make an intervention last week.

Except his campaigning and his acting like a leader are not mutually exclusive, a good leader can do both eg as I mentioned earlier a 10 min appearance by video link whilst camapaigning maybe meaning one less doorbell rung. That he can't appreciate he can and should do both to me makes him unsuited to be leader.

 

[briantrumpet]

Definitely sounds like doubling down to me

(My bold and italic)
Same article

Except his campaigning and his acting like a leader are not mutually exclusive, a good leader can do both eg as I mentioned earlier a 10 min appearance by video link whilst camapaigning maybe meaning one less doorbell rung. That he can't appreciate he can and should do both to me makes him unsuited to be leader.

Yup, *not* doing something can be as much a statement of intent as doing something. If he didn't see the motion as extremely consequential for the Green Party as a whole, given the history of the subject, and worthy of his attention, then he's a fool.

 

[First Aspect]

He didn't vote or participate in the debate because he basically supports the motion, and saying so would be political suicide.

 

[briantrumpet]

 

[First Aspect]

You are either with us or against us.

The philosophy of the perpetual war.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You are either with us or against us.

The philosophy of the perpetual war.

She can leave the party or stay and argue her point. Or she can slag her own party off in public.
Luciana Berger?

 

[Pblakeney]

She can leave the party or stay and argue her point. Or she can slag her own party off in public.
Luciana Berger?

She is not alone in slagging off her party in public.
They deserve it, and probably need it to be sustainable.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

She is not alone in slagging off her party in public.
They deserve it, and probably need it to be sustainable.

Yep. Can't have people calling out the Zionists. Can't have a democratic process within the party.