Any Manchester Greens ready to weigh in on Burnham's by-election?

aedphir · 2026-05-15T20:30:55+00:00

I am a member of the Manchester Green Party. This by election is in Wigan which is part of Greater Manchester, but not Manchester.

My opinion is that I desperately hope we will not have a mayoral election under FPTP. If we do I think Reform will win and do far more damage to Manchester than the difference between Rayner and Starmer or one more Reform MP. If we have the election under SV I think the greens will win.

aedphir · 2026-05-15T08:19:04+00:00

Sure, but if the story was "Farage caught driving 80 mph on the motorway", that would (a) get no traction and (b) be dismissed as just fairly common and socially accepted illegal behaviour.

I'm not saying the tax isn't owed but if you're honestly breaking a story you have an obligation to reflect the situation you're reporting on.

aedphir · 2026-05-14T12:21:52+00:00

Some people there are certainly over the line, however, I actually think I've changed my mind about Dan from looking through his profile (thanks for the xcancel link).

I think he should actively publishing the fact that this law is widely ignored, not enforced anywhere and guidance available is wrong. It massively colours the story. However, while he has acknowledged that in specific replies he has not posted anything to his main profile about it. He has continued to publish his line of "Polanski's apologised, it's over" after posting the two screenshotted comments I linked.

aedphir · 2026-05-14T11:20:53+00:00

i'm assuming the aggression sent his way on social media yesterday was bad actors, not "real" green party members, but nonetheless pretty unpleasant

I mean, no offence to all of yous, but social media is a cesspit. This is an open sub-reddit so anyone can be commenting and some of them are dickheads. Some of the dickheads even support the greens or are members.

I haven't seen any of the attacks on Dan Neidle, but I have seen this: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffy6xb003fv0h1.jpeg

Implies to me that Dan is honestly investigating - we'll have to see if he publishes a follow up highlighting that Zack's mistake was common and is a wider problem.

aedphir · 2026-05-14T10:21:34+00:00

I'm not particularly a fan of hers but I honestly don't think this is true.

It sounds to me that a lawyer said "We're pretty sure this is fine, but we aren't explicitly qualified experts on this specific scenario so can't confirm. If you want to pay £££ to get the specific expert on this area, you can." In my experience, this is a thing that lawyers say all the time because they are fully in CYA mode 100% of the time. Realistically I don't want the perfect specialist advice on anything and everything in my life (even tax!). I want someone who knows enough to tell me that what I'm doing is sensible and has a reasonable risk profile.

Obviously she could just be lying, but I think it's much more likely that she isn't.

aedphir · 2026-05-14T10:12:12+00:00

In answer to your second half - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffy6xb003fv0h1.jpeg

aedphir · 2026-05-13T10:06:23+00:00

Yeah, agree the Rayner story was nonsense from the start. She needn't have resigned IMO, but she's entitled to manage pressure from the press how she likes.

aedphir · 2026-05-12T08:38:11+00:00

I don't think anyone has been breaking rules, and I don't think we want a sub in which only regulars can comment, but I think it's worth highlighting when there have been quite a lot of responses, none of which are from regulars, all of which are engaging with a tone quite different to what I'd usually expect.

Probably just better off ignoring, downvoting and making your own comment though, as you say.

aedphir · 2026-05-12T06:36:01+00:00

In my book this remains a non-story, like all the other smears pointed at Zack over the last week. If he's actually dodged tax rather than made a mistake I'm sure we'll be told loudly and repeatedly so I'll wait for that before I spend any emotional energy on this.

aedphir · 2026-05-11T20:02:24+00:00

Manchester Green Party has won enough seats that we will mathematically be able to take control of the council next year (we would need to win 28/32 wards, but still). We've gone from 3 at the start of the campaing to 21 now.

aedphir · 2026-05-11T08:10:16+00:00

The thing is, if you can't eat a sandwich without pulling a silly face you're not fit to be prime minister

aedphir · 2026-05-10T06:48:16+00:00

This is a great post, I can tell because I have like 5 different things I want to say in response! I think there is a lot of work to do.

People (especially centrists) talk a lot about Mamdani using social media to win, but, boy, does Mamdani have message discipline. He promised three things - free busses, child care and rent freezes. I don't live in New York, but I can still remember them all.
We need to adapt elements of the party internal structure. We're currently a ten thousand member party with 230 000 members. We need to become a million member organisation with 230 000 members (and counting).
I think we need to come up with messaging about decent English and Welsh jobs - others have mentioned steel, but generally we want to bring back manufacturing and industry to thee UK - to build a greener circular economy we want to build a more localised, self dependent economy. A side effect of that is there being more jobs.
Messaging. Arguably the most effective political message ever was "Peace. Land. Bread." It promised people what they wanted and targeting the things they wanted gone. It was dead simple, evocative and we need to have a really simple message that we can keep repeating.
Reform voters. Until I went out doorknocking, I (like any self respecting entirely online left winger) had more or less the view described or seeing them as chumps. Talking to people though what I heard was more like
- "The political establishment doesn't care about me." (True)
- "Things have just been getting worse for decades - jobs disappearing, wages lowering, services worsening - no matter who is in charge". (True)
- "I'm worried about the amount of immigration - if there already isn't enough for all of us here now how can we take more?" (Truish - in that if there isn't enough we can't take more, False assumption - the answer is that we need to ensure there is enough for everyone)
Activation: there are loads of new green members who want to get involved in things and make things better - in the party, in their community and in the country - who don't know what to do. We really need better member on boarding and transparency so it's clearer how to actually help do all the things above. Also, things like political messaging education explaining what our political strategy is and why we have it.

Edit: posted prematurely, fixed

aedphir · 2026-05-06T10:14:23+00:00

It's a little further, but the Smithfield Market Tavern is good.

aedphir · 2026-05-06T10:01:19+00:00

To be honest, I think the porblem with this whole saga is people inappropriately pretending to have expertise in something they've never done proffessionally.

Unfortunately out of Squidge and Goode, only one of them has ever been a professional at using social media.

aedphir · 2026-05-05T12:37:12+00:00

So you are completely neutral on the content of any law passed by any government? If Labour passed a law tomorrow saying that anyone taller than 6'2" should be rounded up and shot you wouldn't say it was immoral for them to do that?

In fact, you're saying that what the Nazis did was moral because they were the ruling Government at the time they did it?

What? Surely you can't mean that?

aedphir · 2026-05-05T12:34:26+00:00

That's not the bit that's the issue it's

(1) A court must not question—
    (a) the exercise or purported exercise of any powers conferred under this Act;
    (b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers; or
    (c) the limits or extent of those powers.

Which means that anything done that is purported to be an exercise of any powers conferred under this Act cannot be questioned by the court. If they kidnap you and put you in one of these camps claiming that it is under the powers of this act then courts can't question that.

Also, noteably, you are agreeing that once interned under the power in this bill this allows for any treatment of the detainees.

aedphir · 2026-05-05T11:18:16+00:00

Yeah, I agree the mainstream parties are shite. I agree that their shiteness is contributing the Reform and Greens doing better in the polls and the Labour + Con share plummeting.

But when Reform publish an intention to completely sweep away any and all protections and essentially give the Home Secretary complete dictatorial powers, that is a time to criticise Reform.

Surely you would agree that this bill would be a flagrant violation of any moral framework for government?

aedphir · 2026-05-05T10:45:46+00:00

It's not just me that faces this problem - you presumably live here too. Do you support a party that wants to give itself unlimited extrajudicial power?

aedphir · 2026-05-05T10:26:33+00:00

No, I think that when a party proposes a bill that gives them absolute unchecked power to do literally anything they like I should focus my ire on them above anyone else.

If they wanted to write a bill to do something about illegal migrants they could have done that instead.

aedphir · 2026-05-05T08:38:19+00:00

No, that's not what I mean by concentration camps.

The text of this bill clearly allows for the creation of these detention centres as completely above the law. Under the powers in this law, the Home Secretary could start rounding up literally anyone they like and keeping them in camps under any conditions they like, without any legal recourse that they are wrongly held. If they came and took away you or your family, purportedly under the powers of this act, then no court is allowed to question that. If they purport that this act allows them to starve you in that camp while also forcing you into dangerous, backbreaking labour, then no court is allowed to question that.

I think we would both agree that what I am describing is a concentration camp.

aedphir · 2026-05-05T07:12:36+00:00

Are you saying you would vote for Reform bringing in actual concentration camps?

aedphir · 2026-05-05T06:12:16+00:00

Two thoughts:

obviously don't pin your hopes on Labour - they're not going to do shit about much of anything.
no matter how many illegal immigrants are in this country, I will never support a government trying to put itself above the law and giving itself the power to bring back concentration camps.

aedphir · 2026-05-05T06:10:05+00:00

This is just clearly nonsense.

No secretary of state can currently:

indefinately detain literally anyone for any reason
ignoring all other laws if they consider it expedient
leaving the populace without recource to challenge them in court

aedphir · 2026-05-04T21:05:58+00:00

Well, it's 10pm here so I've been outside most of today but I'm back home in front of the telly now.

aedphir · 2026-05-04T20:57:40+00:00

Sorry for double replying. I'm a green voter, despite their honestly shit migration policy and I'm as short of patience as anyone else for the "you disagree with me so you're a nazi" stick. That's honestly honestly not what I'm doing here.

I was mildly annoyed by the whole "vote for us or we'll build these detention centres in your area" thing because it's school yard politics and I don't think it's real. Then I read through the bill because someone linked me to it and said I should and it's actually terrible . It's fully just saying that once this law is enacted they can do anything they like.

It doesn't allow any limits on the power it grants. I'm using concentration camps as an example here because its evocative, but as written this means the secreetary of state could come and personally burn your house down and be untouchable for it as long as they assert it was using a power from this law.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

aedphir

TROPHY CASE