Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Some of his candidates seem to lean that way though. Like Reform, in the rush of new members and the rush to field candidates in every borough in the council elections, the Greens have failed to do a bit of due diligence and ended up looking stupid. Who's responsible if not Zac?
briantrumpet
Timewaster
A good thread from a staunch union member on the Greens' pledge to repeal all post-1979 union laws.
https://skywriter.blue/@josiahmortimer.bsky.social/3mlb2xmuekk2l
https://skywriter.blue/@josiahmortimer.bsky.social/3mlb2xmuekk2l
Psamathe
Legendary Member
Under Polanski they are flailing around, all sorts of daft ideas not thought through. Maybe it's easier for them as they know they'll never get the opportunity to actually have to live-up to those pledges.
But the worrying thing is how the more recent stuff just hasn't been thought through. Things used to be a lot more sensible.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Just another example of the Greens putting out sweeping, vote winning pledges but with little detail of how it's going to work. Nobody, not even the staunchest of unionists, really want to go back to union leaders being voted for once and having a job for life.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Well, it did the Lib-dems for many years 😂
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Yep, I think that's the difference between Caroline Lucas and populist Polanski - my guess is that Lucas thought the politics through more throrougly, but then that didn't win them many seats, as the electorate rewards promises of unicorns.
Last edited:
Psamathe
Legendary Member
I agree. OK under Adrian Ramsay (jointly) as well.
In some respects Polanski has hijacked the party and I'm uncertain if their increased membership & votes is because of his leadership or because they are the only real option for many disillusioned Labour voters. Just like Starmer didn't so much win the last General Election but rather the Conservatives just self-destructed (Starmer achieving a significantly lower vote share (34%) than Corbyn did (40%)), so irrespective of Green leadership those unhappy with Blue Labour and their right wing policies only have the Greens to represent their views and take their votes. (Maybe overlooking the Lib Dems but then so is the entire country)
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I think generally Polanski has sidelined the green stuff for easy populist stuff, and he's attracted quite a lot of Corbyn types who are disillusioned with Starmer (which I can understand). But I suspect his skill is in identifying things that get media attention rather than pushing a properly green agenda.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...d=69fcdff224df4f32b9ae6cad395cfddb&ocid=hpmsn
If, based on today's impulsive zackbollocks, someone drew a cartoon of Polanski being the devil's advocate, would that cartoon be anti-Semitic?
If, based on today's impulsive zackbollocks, someone drew a cartoon of Polanski being the devil's advocate, would that cartoon be anti-Semitic?
briantrumpet
Timewaster
FWIW, I think Polanski is a populist wally, and people can (and should) caricature him as relentlessly as they should anyone else, but if they are going to use easily identifiable tropes that have been used specifically for antisemitic ends for well over 100 years, then they deserve to be called out, especially given the febrile atmosphere and reported rise in hate crime.
Xipe Totec
Something nasty in the woodshed
I think the comparison between the Times' Polanski caricature & this 1930s Nazi-era cartoon hammers the point home somewhat - if the Times' cartoon did not depict the subject with their mouth open, they would be broadly identical in their depiction of exaggerated 'Jewish' characteristics. In fact it's hard not to wonder how influenced by the 1930s image the Times cartoonist's caricature was.
If you are going to suggest the Polanski image is not antisemitic, then clearly the Nazi image must also not be antisemitic.
If you are going to suggest the Polanski image is not antisemitic, then clearly the Nazi image must also not be antisemitic.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
The one on the left is an arguably recognisable caricature of a person, the one on the right is a caricature of a Jew.
The intention and context matters.
So, the puppet of Leon Brittan upthread is just insulting to Leon Brittan as being a jowly big nosed bore. And nothing more. It is not reasonable to mine that for restrospective antisemitism.
Re the times cartoon, in the context of how this cartoonist draws noses, I don't think that's even hooked, it's bulbous - look at the bridge. Then look at other cartoons of other ethicities. Not other selected cartoons by other cartoonists, which risks confirmation bias.
The intention and context matters.
So, the puppet of Leon Brittan upthread is just insulting to Leon Brittan as being a jowly big nosed bore. And nothing more. It is not reasonable to mine that for restrospective antisemitism.
Re the times cartoon, in the context of how this cartoonist draws noses, I don't think that's even hooked, it's bulbous - look at the bridge. Then look at other cartoons of other ethicities. Not other selected cartoons by other cartoonists, which risks confirmation bias.
Xipe Totec
Something nasty in the woodshed
"Arguably" doing an inordinate amount of heavy lifting here. If the mouth was closed, both would be functionally identical "caricatures of a Jew" with no features recognisable as any specific individual.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
But it isn't. It's open to help show it's Zach Polanski because he has a gap in his teeth.
If it had him rubbing hands together like the happy merchant it would be closer as well, but it doesn't.
