James Milne

I see we've progressed from "yoghurt-knitter" to "savage" 😂

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

I am filing this in the same category as the "Muslims voting for a party led by a gay Jewish man is evidence of sectarianism" nonsense.

And (whilst I understand that culture shock is a thing getting your head around a very different approach to Labour's requires a lot of adjustment), if you genuinely can't handle the idea of being accountable to the local activists who support you then you're not a good fit for our party.

This is fundamental to our culture and principles and needs to be clearly explained to the media and to anyone considering defecting.

Frankly, if you don't think you can win over the local party membership in the next 3 years then you don't deserve to be their candidate or their MP.

Our current MPs will show they remain accountable to their local party membership by facing reselection in due course, as do our councillors including those that have defected from Labour. Hannah Spencer won a vote of Manchester & Tameside Green Party members to be our G&D by-election candidate.

Good article but v disappointed in @peterwalker99.bsky.social 's Green Party source for saying that guaranteeing seats is "difficult for us to do". It is *impossible* for us to do under current rules and party culture and rightly so; our representatives are properly accountable and should remain so.

If I was given a single wish to change one thing and one thing only about our society in order to achieve the greatest positive impact, I might just pick making Discworld a national curriculum requirement.

(It's between this and changing the voting system for me).

So to summarise: You failed to take out the regime. You failed to destroy nuclear material. You failed to eradicate Iran's retaliatory capacity. You brought chaos to the Middle East. You killed god knows how many people. You destabilised your own economy. All for nothing, but the ego of madman.

An illustration of a frog flying through a cloudy blue sky Text reads: LIVE YOUR DREAMS * * not that one you absolute freak Jaunty Art 26

Live Your Dreams*

Not only would I be happy to replace Churchill on fivers with a badger, I'd replace the Churchill statue in Parliament Square with a big bronze badger AND I'd replace Ed Davey with an ACTUAL badger coz it'd probably vote in less austerity.

With apologies to Yes Minister, this is one of those irregularly declining verbs:

I am a concerned citizen and environmentalist.
You are not seeing the big picture
They are a bunch of selfish NIMBYs.

Referendum? What are you talking about?

Do you think political parties produce manifestos on a regular basis between elections?!

It seems you are just looking for any way to attack here, rather than have a respectful discussion.

Cos you insulted American icon Robocop?

Well if it does, that'll be as a result of a democratic process undertaken at party conference that all party members can engage with, and it'll move us closer to our historical position on the matter. 👍

Seriously? Our manifesto from the 2024 General Election, written well before Zack became leader, doesn't say something that would misrepresent both the Party's current policy and Zack's personal views? I am shocked!

For me, I don't think the two positions are fundamentally opposed because Zack is not (to my knowledge) advocating leaving NATO immediately. If he were, I'd agree that they're incompatible policy positions.

Ok thanks for clarifying. Zack actually does specifically state the party policy and how his own view differs in the Guardian podcast. It's perfectly reasonable to say he should do that more often, though personally I think it can be challenging to achieve that in some interview formats.

That's a complete straw man. First of all you are again discounting the time element in this. Party policy is not "stay in NATO always under any circumstances" and Zack's position is not "leave now". And it's perfectly possible to be a close ally of the US and Canada outwith NATO - eg Australia.

I mean all political parties change policy on specific issues from time to time as circumstances change?

What is the fundamental point you are trying to make here?

Both Zack and the party policy documents emphasise building stronger links with European allies.

There's nuance there, which is fine but I don't think they're fundamentally incompatible?

Zack's personal view is he thinks NATO is too dominated by the US to be capable of significant change, but he doesn't want to leave it in the current circumstances, and he'd be pleased if it turns out change is possible.

Current Party policy is to stay in NATO and attempt to change it.

I'm bringing up the historical position cos my original comment was about how the Green Party hasn't fundamentally changed in ideology since Zack took over and you appeared to be citing NATO policy as an example of where it has?

Reaching net zero by 2050 ‘cheaper for UK than one fossil fuel crisis’ Climate change committee finds move to renewable energy would also bring health, economic and security benefits

Net zero doesnt cost more than one fossil fuel crisis and we've had two this decade.
The uk needs to ramp up the move.
www.theguardian.com/environment/...

Regardless, the historic position of the party has been anti-NATO, so if anything Zack's position (to build long term alternatives) is closer to the historical position of the party than current policy is, so this is not an example of Zack's views being at odds with the party's roots or principles.

Maybe you're referring to a different interview with Kuenssberg but the one I've seen, Zack explicitly says it would be ridiculous to leave NATO *right now*. And nothing in the guardian podcast contradicts that.

We want to stay in NATO and attempt to reform it. Neither Zack nor party policy suggest we should leave it right now.

At the same time we want to strengthen relationships with European allies so that there is a viable alternative to NATO in future. Which seems pretty sensible right now.

Zack's statements on NATO are in line with current party policy. Our current policy and everything Zack has said about NATO is moderate compared to the party's historic position on that particular issue.

By "authentically green" do you mean ineffective?

Because the party's policy and messaging hasn't really changed since Zack became leader. Just the effectiveness with which we've communicated those messages.

This 18-year-old Afghan girl nearly escaped the Taliban – then we took her visa away She resisted a forced marriage and studied in secret, winning scholarships to leave Kabul and attend a British university. But now the home secretary’s ban on study visas has removed her one chance…

"Britain has decided that the girl who fought the Taliban’s agenda, who learned English in secret, who turned down a forced marriage, who won her place, is an asylum risk.
Her name is Bahar. She is 18 years old. She did everything we asked of her."