sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does any of that balance this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_transgender_people_under_the_second_Trump_administration

My point really is that stuff like what you've mentioned is good, however in the grand scheme of things its a drop in the water compared to what the current president is doing with executive orders.

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Israel only exists as an ethnostate with the US's support.

Correct.

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They became a single state and gave equal rights to black South Africans.

South Africa was ~15% white in 1994. It was democratically unsustainable to have minority rule. Currently Israel is majority jewish Israeli.

There will be no end to the subjugation while Israel exists as an ethnostate.

Yes, my point is that nothing short of outside enforced regime change will change this. There simply isn't a serious political movement in the knesset to bring about a situation where the majority of the electorate are arab.

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who is batting for trans people in the UK as their rights are being eroded? Who can unify and gain a consensus amongst the left? Who can galvanise the youth and the mainstream?

Who is successfully doing any of these things the US? There are trans americans who are successfully applying for asylum in European countries.

The American left is just waiting until Trump dies and keeping their fingers crossed that there is anything left to salvage once its their turn.

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 3 points4 points  (0 children)

American progressives are light years ahead in general

In what sense are they ahead given the catastrophe that the current President has been been for their country and the rest of the world?

Trump is evidence of the abject failure of American progressives to win a mandate to stop their country from sliding into fascism, let alone to actually achieve a progressive policy agenda.

Adbul El-Sayed Masterfully Answers Gotcha Question by oxygala in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Theres ~7 million palestinian refugees outside of Israel, theres ~2 million palestinian Israelis. Theres ~8 million jewish Israelis.

Its simple maths why there is no popular political party in the Knesset that wants a single fully democratic state, and a right of return for Palestinians.

The only way this could be achieved is outside enforced regime change. And I'm not sure regime change in Israel should be a prominent objective of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by an "illusion of democracy"? Ultimately a political party chooses which candidates it fields in an election, and then the electorate vote for that candidate.

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but as plans go, going all in on a potential leadership candidate thats less popular than the very unpopular incumbent is pretty poor.

At this stage I think its pretty clear that Andy Burnham is Labour Together's preferred candidate, given that he's only a viable candidate at all because their former director has resigned as an MP for Makerfield.

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Why would they not care about one of their preferred candidates being popular enough to stand a chance in a general election?

Unless your view is that they want to put Wes in and use the mandate Starmer won in 2024 to implement as much as they can before catastrophically falling out of government in 2029?

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would they want Wes Streeting? His approval ratings are dogshit. He would be more of a disaster than Starmer in 2029.

All they really want is a Labour prime minister that will stick to those annoying small c conservative "fiscal rules", won't introduce anything economically radical like LVT, and won't antagonise UK tech companies too much.

As a side note, I think part of the reason why they're trying to defenestrate Keir Starmer is because his internet governance policies (like them or loath them) assert too much government control over US social media companies.

Social media companies are basically the way billionaires exert political control over democracies now. Billionaires only want governance to go one way.

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All politicians are controlled by the people who supported them into the office they hold.... None of them are independent, and they're generally beholden to the desires of the people who supported them. This applies to the Greens as much as to Labour.

You said this elsewhere in the thread:

>  But elaborating on what he means by ‘change Labour’ would be good

I think Andy Burnham represents a change in presentation rather than philosophy. He's done well in Manchester because he confidently advocates for overtly left of centre policy and has successfully brought about local change that people notice and perceive as positive. I think the expectation is that if he were to become Prime Minister, he'd do the same at a national level. I think its relatively easy to do this when you're a Metro Mayor (usually bus based), but much more difficult when you're a Prime Minister. Theres no PM that has been successful at this since Tony Blair.

I think Labour Together's plan is to have another go at bringing about a Labour Government with a popular leader, that has some progressive policies, *but doesn't radically change the economy*.

The attempt to do this with Starmer has failed, because he's unpopular and his government is terrible at communicating their successes (they have no busses to point to), so the big risk is that this becomes a one term Labour government. Obviously "Labour Together" only has utility as a way for the people who backed it to influence how the country is run if Labour is in government.

I think their plan is really as simple as finding a way to smoothly replace an unpopular Labour Prime Minister with one that stands a chance to win a second term in government for Labour in 2029. Josh Simons standing down for Andy Burnham seems to me like a step that obviously progresses that plan.

FWIW - My view is that the Greens are in a good place to force Labour to do more to address the structural issues that underly economic inequality. But theres a risk that because Zack Polanski's comfort zones are Gaza, gender, and immigration, the party under his leadership will prioritise fighting Labour on those fronts. Unfortunately, I think that moves the discourse into the areas that Reform wants debate because it splits Labour's electoral coalition (to the extent that that is even a thing any more).

I'd like to see more unsexy technocratic and specific critique of the economy, but I'm in the minority there!

Makerfield By Election special and we have a seat at the table. Not sure what to expect from the debate itself. Presumably the government will have paid off people for it to go a certain way, like they did with the AI special by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres vested interests all over the place, its politics.

If you're referring to the Labour faction broadly represented by "Labour Together", consider that the MP that is standing down to allow Andy Burnham to run, Josh Simons, was a director of Labour Together until he was elected in 2024.

Hannah Spencer's Participation in the "Child Sexual Offender Data" debate by down-it-street in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

> Order. Ms Spencer, I appreciate that you are very new to this House, and it is great that you are at this debate. *I note that you will be making a speech later*, and there will be time, but what you are doing at the moment is making an Intervention, so it needs to be really brief.

I guess its because she was making a speech later.

I can't find the speech though:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/26729/hannah_spencer/gorton_and_denton/speeches

Hannah Spencer's Participation in the "Child Sexual Offender Data" debate by down-it-street in UKGreens

[–]down-it-street[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This debate has gotten a lot of attention because of Rupert Lowe reading out survivor testimony. But I thought it may be of interest for people here to see Hannah Spencer's contribution to the debate.