Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[matticus]

Currently the Tories are mostly saying the right things.

I hope you have a long and loving partnership 🫂

 

[Ianonabike]

I hope you have a long and loving partnership 🫂

I'm fickle - didn't you get the memo?

 

[Ian H]

Sorry Aurora but you and Ian are now playing tag-team posting - it's like the good old days here on NACA! - and I won't respond any more to posts taken out of context.

You're on a roll today, Matt. Too much coffee?

 

[First Aspect]

I advise getting the information first hand direct from the Green Party.

https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/defending-human-rights-democracy-and-justice

I'm kind of not interested. Or, rather, I followed the public discourse on the issues in Scotland, ad nauseum. I don't think I can learn anything new from a virtue signalling statement from the Greens. So I asked Aurora Saab.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In seriousness, it seems to me - having seen this play out in Scotland - that in an effort to virtue signal their inclusivity, political parties (all of them, in Scotland, in fact) went further than society as a whole wanted, and have ended up with more regressive law than they had to begin with.

In your view, when did the shift to trans rights outweigh women's rights?

Genuine question.

About 10/15 years ago. Once gay marriage was legalised groups like Stonewall didn't have much to do so they jumped on the pro trans bandwagon that was being pushed in the US.
'Inclusivity' became the next big thing and activist groups joined Stonewall in providing training to businesses that pushed an agenda - including muddying the regs of the Equality Act on single sex services.

Meanwhile trans activists were getting themselves on board with government departments and organisations. The Scottish Prison Service guidelines that trans identifying men should be housed in the women's estate were informed by trans activists for example, with no input from women's groups. The IOC based male inclusion in Olympic sports on a piece of poor research by a trans identifying man, Joanna Harper, which included just 8 participants.

It takes jarring examples - like male rapists in women's prisons or men in the women's Olympics - to wake up the public.

 

[matticus]

They've expelled women and men who won't toe the line on gender issues. They made a man head of the Green Party Women's Section.

https://unherd.com/2025/10/the-green-partys-war-on-women/

What's the USP of the Greens? Why vote for them over say the Lib Dems? It's the environmental focus surely. They've abandoned that central focus, alienating people who worked and voted for them for years; all in favour of trying to capture the youth vote with pie in the sky policies and bandwagon social activism, especially on trans issues.

Thanks. (She doesn't do herself any favours by leaping straight to the "BOOBS!, HYPNOTISM!" theme, but I can see there's some important stuff in there.)
I'm still on the fence here; no party can be all things to all people.

 

[Pblakeney]

I'm still on the fence here; no party can be all things to all people.

I'd settle for one party being all things to me.
The whole of UK politics is a shitshow just now.

 

[matticus]

I'd settle for one party being all things to me.
The whole of UK politics is a shitshow just now.

Is that realistic??

I'd say it's incredibly unlikely (unless you start your own!). In any era.

 

[Pblakeney]

Is that realistic??

Has been in the past. And why I have voted how I have for most parties based on their manifestos/promises/lies.
Once I had to dive down to an independent. These days? Not a clue who I will vote for next. Possibly an independent.

 

[monkers]

I'm kind of not interested. Or, rather, I followed the public discourse on the issues in Scotland, ad nauseum. I don't think I can learn anything new from a virtue signalling statement from the Greens. So I asked Aurora Saab.

When one is not interested in the truth, there is no better source.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This morning you've let slip that you are the same person posting as the one who supposedly died in June. Nothing you say is believable.

 

[monkers]

This morning you've let slip that you are the same person posting as the one who supposedly died in June. Nothing you say is believable.

Fantasy thinking. Nothing you say is truth. For the sake of other people, can we agree to leave it there?

 

[First Aspect]

When one is not interested in the truth, there is no better source.

What are you talking about?

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was a personal dig at me, FA. From someone who supposedly passed away whilst waiting for a cup of tea in June.

 

[First Aspect]

Fantasy thinking. Nothing you say is truth. For the sake of other people, can we agree to leave it there?

Seems to be what is known as an "opinion" as far as I can tell. AS takes the view that a very small minority group got too much of a voice.

I neither agree nor disagree, but I do find the reaction strikingly similar to the devisive "with us or anti trans" tenor of the discourse in Scotland from about 2022-2024.

When there are conflicting rights to be balanced, things are clearly not that simple.

I do think it serves to demonstrate how the Greens seem to choose some odd hills to die on, mind you. At the very least make yourselves unpopular because of environmental policies, surely?