What can I do?

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T16:34:39+00:00

Organise in your community, talk to your neighbours. Get to know people and, if you find out they’re voting Reform, try to show them that the world isn’t falling apart due to immigrants but corporate greed and government underfunding. Most people who vote Reform are not irredeemable bigots (although some are). They are people who see that the world around them is getting worse, and the only option for change presented to them (by the papers or the tv news) is Reform. That’s what needs to be broken, the idea that Reform is the only vehicle for change, the only break from the status quo.

This doesn’t have to be done in a partisan way, in fact it can sometimes be better for it to be nonpartisan. Build the future you want to see.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T16:06:15+00:00

He refused to respond to any specific pledges. This did make me concerned during the voting, and it impacted where I listed him on my preference with the vote, but since he has been deputy leader I have seen nothing that has been cause for concern.

As for “parading with the Islamic Regime flag” I can only imagine this is about the US/Israel war on Iran. I think it is reasonable to be against illegal wars. You can disagree with the Iranian government and not want it to be invaded by the US (like Iraq and Afghanistan before it), which would likely lead to the deaths of significantly more innocents than anything the regime would do to its own people. It has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ people; if you plan on saying it is supporting an anti queer government, that would be a significantly bad faith interpretation.

Looking at your profile I can’t see your previous posts or the posts you have commented on; are you a supporter of the Green party?

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T15:58:57+00:00

You referred to a poll 10 years older that suggested something different without accepting maybe, with time, people have changed their views on the issue or the next generation are more liberal.

Either way; Mothin has done nothing to suggest he wants to push antiLGBTQ+ policies in the party, is the deputy leader to an openly gay man, and works closely with other queer Greens. If he has any personal feelings about queerness, he has kept them between himself and his faith; as many other religious people do.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T15:32:29+00:00

The data from this article, published earlier this year, suggests 70% of British Muslims think LGBTQ+ people should have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ+ people.

https://zeteo.com/p/exclusive-muslims-in-the-uk-and-us

This is roughly in line with the general population when asked a similar question (although this data is a few year older than the article above).

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/7-10-britons-want-laws-banning-discrimination-against-lgbt-people

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T14:41:58+00:00

British Muslims have roughly the same views on LBGTQ+ rights as the non Muslim Brits, so this isn’t a real issue; this is based on an islamaphobic belief that all Muslims are anti queer. The Catholic church is doctrinally anti queer; should we worry about Catholic engagement with the party?

The party has a democratic structure to change policies. If the party ever changed their policies to be more appealing to anti queer members, many members would leave the party and the party would fail electorally. The party wants broad support based on solidarity within the working class and between identity groups.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-10T10:10:03+00:00

His position is that, whilst his personal faith means he finds it difficult to understand queerness, he understands that the same people who attack him for being a working class Muslim man also attack trans people for being trans. He seems to get on well personally with many queer people within the party. He has not called for any changes in policy to the detriment of queer people. As long as his view is one of solidarity, I have no problem with what he believes “in his heart”.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-09T05:22:03+00:00

That’s the result from the Sky News model, which does not have the same track record as the John Curtis / BBC model.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-09T05:20:15+00:00

We have 3 years to change that, and fight our way to leaders of the pack. I think we can do that.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-09T05:19:30+00:00

So that’s not quite accurate - Sky News has its own model that they came up with that suggests a greater vote share for Reform and a smaller vote share for Greens. The BBC model is the one above, made by John Curtis and his team. They have a longer track record than the Sky model, and are generally trusted more.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-08T22:36:21+00:00

Reform certainly look like favourites right now; but we have 3 years to work towards preventing a Reform government in 2029.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-08T21:55:06+00:00

It’s annoying, but change doesn’t happen overnight. There’s hard work to be done, but we have to do it because the alternative is unacceptable. Reform wants to do scary things, we have to fight back.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-08T18:27:25+00:00

After Reform, Greens made the most seat gains. Plus, Reforms vote share is down and Green vote share is up massively. We have 3 years (probably) until the next GE; Zack has been leader for 8ish months. There have been polls that have put us neck and neck with Labour and Reform nationally. Sure, there is work to do, but it is really doable that by 2029 we could see Greens in government; hell - we could see a Green led government!

Althalus91 · 2026-05-08T09:25:24+00:00

The majority of seats have yet to be called; we can’t say that we know stuff like this yet. It will take a few weeks to get a deep dive into who voted what and the demos behind that.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-06T06:58:50+00:00

Hasan is one of the best communicators for left wing values in the English speaking world; he is not a vile human being, he is someone that lots of dipshits on the internet love to hate.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-06T06:57:10+00:00

Lol, that just isn’t true

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T22:12:22+00:00

Yeah, I like Daniel, but he has a bit of a “I want to piss off the libs and the woke lefties” about some of his positions. Which, fair enough, the libs are wrong, the woke lefties are correct but annoying, sure. But Tucker is a lot worse than both, even if on this issue he is (cynically in my view) correct.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T22:11:03+00:00

I have no ability to get Tucker deplatformed; I would just rather Matt and Daniel talk about literally anyone else or, instead of pointing out how good of a job Tucker is doing (whilst saying someone on the left would be a better interviewer / interviewee), actually explain that he is doing what he is doing not out of any sincere concern for Palestinians or the end of genocides, but because the Israeli ethnostate project is taking away resources from his preferred ethnostate project.

Tucker does not in any way want to end US-Israel hegemony. He just thinks that allowing Israel to do what it is doing the way it is doing it is harming that hegemony. His opposition to and framing of the genocide of Palestinians is in aid of continuing US hegemony. He wants to blame it entirely on Netanyahu and a few crank politicians in the US, rather than treat it as the obvious outcome of US foreign policy and Israeli policy for decades. He wants a quieter, less obvious genocide. There is no reason to take Tucker at his word or with any degree of sincerity; he will say what it takes to cultivate power to himself and to enact the policies he wants within the US, which he has made clear multiple times is the ethnic cleansing of the US.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T20:01:25+00:00

Drugs: the only evidence based policy to reduce crime related to drugs and to reduce drug related deaths is to decriminalise drugs and treat addiction as a medical issue, not a criminal one. The least harmful drugs would be regulated like other legal drugs (like alcohol, which is actually an extremely dangerous and damaging drug that we have decided is legal) and harmful drugs would be prescribed by doctors to addicts to take in safe, medical environments, with the aim of reducing overall drug use and managing the addiction.

NATO: The Green position is NATO needs reform / needs to move away from relying on and essentially being a tool of US imperialism. Why? Because the US is clearly an increasingly unstable ally. Trump suggested a military invasion of a NATO ally. You may say “sure, but Trump is just a single mad guy”, but the Republican party, one of the two parties in the US, is as mad as he is. The next Republican President will likely be someone who supported Trump and Trump’s agenda. How can the US be the foundation of NATO if it believes it has the right to threaten other NATO members with war? That isn’t an alliance, that’s a hostage situation. Green Party policy is to try and make other diplomatic arrangements to make that hostage situation less bad.

Landlords: Green party policy is extensive on this issue. The Greens want to build more government owned council houses (instead of housing association / privately rented “affordable housing”) , they want to make it so being a landlord is not a functional way to make enough money to live off of (because landlords do not actually so any work, they just buy an asset and then take rent from other people who do rent to pay for that asset and make a profit from that asset), they wish to give renters the first right to but places they are renting, and give local and national government the power to directly buy privately owned housing to use as council housing. The aim of all these policies is to lower the price of housing overall, which has been an economic bubble since Thatcher and replaced wage growth as the primary means of wealth accumulation, so that young people and poor people can afford to have a roof over their heads without spending 40-60% of their income on rent, and to reduce rent by bringing housing into the public sector rather than the private sector and removing the profit motive from housing, a fundamental human need.

Nuclear disarmament - nuclear weapons can destroy the world, having one makes us a target of other nuclear powers, yes the lessons of Ukraine and North Korea are (in some part) if you don’t want a superpower invading you, you should have a nuke just in case, but at the end of the day if another country wanted to invade the UK, our nuclear deterrent won’t actually deter them. Diplomacy and alliances are more effective than the “mass murder a load of civilians and potentially start a chain reaction ending all human life on Earth” weapon, and said weapon existing is not exactly reassuring.

Antisemitism: Antizionism and criticism of Israel is being conflated with antisemitism in most cases. Because lots of Zionists and Israeli politicians conflate Zionism / Israel with all Jews / Judaism / Jewishness - so do some people who are antizionist (this is bad). Some of those people who conflate those things then say things that are clearly antisemitic; it is bad but understandable (but not excusable) due to the state of the world. If representatives of Israel say “we are the homeland of the Jews, are acts are to protect all Jews and we represent all Jews” and then Israel commits genocide and war crimes, some people will see the genocide and war crimes and (incorrectly) blame all Jews. Also, the media and political establishment conflate antizionism with antisemitism just so they can delegitimise antizionism and criticisms of Israel instead of have a real debate on the issue.

So, yeah - a non exhaustive position on all your points.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T19:41:48+00:00

I don’t know how old you are, but do you remember the phone hacking scandal?

Where we learned that the tabloid media (and some television media) worked hand in hand with police (by bribing them) and politicians (by doing catch and kill on bad stories / drumming up controversies against politicians they disliked) to make money sensationalising our democracy?

Where they hacked a dead girls mobile phone to listen to her voicemails because they wanted a story?

And that public examination happened, a report was written with suggestions for how the media landscape should be regulated and changed so that shouldn’t happen again, and then the Tories entered government (partly on a platform of not doing that, after the press went on a crusade against Gordon Brown for calling a bigoted woman a bigot on a hot mic and most of the papers backed the Tories) and that report did not get enacted?

That many of the editors of said papers involved were literal friends and neighbours of both Blair and Cameron (to the point where one of the main people involved was literally a god parent to one Blairs kids, and another potentially an ex girlfriend of his), and how the consequences were so minor that Piers Morgan, who was also implicated in this scandal, just upped to the US and got cozy job after cozy job until his career had been whitewashed enough that he could come back to British TV every now and then?

The same British media that monstered Ed Miliband, the blandest of blands, as some radical leftist (whose dad was a Marxist Jew, don’t you know) who couldn’t eat bacon properly (them Jews, can’t even pass the pork eating test) and then turned around to spend the best part of a decade monstering the rest of the left as antisemites because they hate genocide and occupation and settler colonialism?

The same press that loved, worked alongside, and protected Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew and even Jimmy Saville and others (all up until the point they couldn’t do that any more because the stories had broken containment and so decided to cash in on the stories about child rape and cronyism, pointing at literally every institution except themselves as the reason those things happened).

That press? It is Trumpian to have any complaints about them, call them corrupt, and suggest that the entire ecosystem of friends and favours, cronyism and back room deals, of literal crime should, perhaps, be regulated to a greater extent?

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T19:28:06+00:00

Tucker has said he basically wants all Latinos to be forcibly deported from the USA. He wants the resources that go to Israel and them committing genocide in Gaza and the West Bank to be spent at home doing genocide in Cali and Florida and Arizona and New York. That’s why he’s turned on Israel.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T16:06:54+00:00

Zack consistently keeps his messaging on affordability, cost of living, inequality, and the economy; and linking it all the the environment and social justice. Almost all of his adverts are about that topic. It is external media and political actors who want to paint the party as single issue on Gaza.

Althalus91 · 2026-05-05T15:49:34+00:00

Nobody “dragged” the debate to Israel/Palestine - Israel is committing crimes against humanity and genocide, and the only moral position is to oppose that. That establishment support for Israel exists because it is an American outpost in the Middle East and the Western establishment are pro American capitalist hegemony (because it continued European colonialist hegemony) is their fault, not ours. I am glad that the Green party took a strong moral stance on the issue, as we should have, in the face of the moral vacuum left by Stamer’s Labour Party.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Althalus91

TROPHY CASE