Defiantly Alice

Honestly, I'm off to do other things now. Ross Greer is not even the only leader of the SGP, and he certainly isn't in charge of GPEW policies. Reforming NATO is a real policy, and not *joining* it as an independent nation is one too. That's all, have fun being mad online, and goodbye.

Cool, then complain about him personally over that rather than just railing against everything the Greens say and pretending they don't have policies.
bsky.app/profile/mech...

Zach Polanski is not the party. He isn't going to come up with the whole plan solo, and GPEW policy presently remains reforming NATO from within.

For the SGP, the question would be whether to *join* after independence, and they think it'd be better to be like Ireland. What more policy is necessary?

As for Ross Greer - sounds like you have a personal animus towards him too. Maybe you should stop attacking the various Green Parties of the entire UK just because you don't like the guy who currently leads one of them. 'It doesn't exist' isn't a real complaint about a future facing policy.
2/2

'The alternative doesn't exist'

Neither do hospitals until they are built, or unions until they are made. Like, what a bizarre response.

'We want to build an alternative to NATO'

'It doesn't exist'

Well yeah... Because it hasn't been built yet. Fucking hell man.
1/2

That is a policy. It is not 'no alternative, we're taking our ball and going home'.

For Ross Greer, I don't know if he'd join that alternative, because I'm not sure anyone has asked him. He probably doesn't make childish puns out of your name though, so there's a moral win there.
2/2

The proposal is to functionally have a NATO that doesn't have a US in it. You mentioned Polanski - current GPEW policy is to try and do that from within, reforming the existing NATO. Polanski's personal view is the alternative - building a new one with existing members - is more viable.
1/2

Alright fine, sure, maybe it's a bit of a dig to phrase it that way.

But the thing is, it isn't sealioning to ask if you genuinely think a European alliance isn't a real alternative. Because I'm not asking in bad faith. I genuinely want to know if you think an alternative alliance is impossible.

Not whole cloth - the alternative is obviously a European defensive alliance that isn't focused around the US, which has been a pretty common talking point in the last year. Is it not a real alternative for them either? Or is it just the UK that's not allowed better things?
bsky.app/profile/euan...

Benjamin Netanyahu’s long career was built on conflict avoidance—then, October 7 transformed and radicalized him, @Yair_Rosenberg argues:

OMFG they think we are the dumbest people who ever lived.

I just can't believe we'd be having a discussion about divisive politics in the same way if Goodwin, an actual blood and soil nationalist who would dispute if those same Muslim voters were English, had won. I can't believe we're having it without evidence that Muslim voters did swing majorly Green!

"Socially conservative muslim voters chose the trans positive left wing woman for the party led by a gay Jewish man because of patriarchal family voting built on a sectarian hatred of Israel" Requires a series of logical leaps so large that it's astonishing it's become embedded logic.

this is so good. they're realising about a decade after everyone else has, mind

Yes - a poor mandate with an outsized majority won through the vagaries of the voting system and half the opposition staying at home or getting spoilered by third parties. In any reasonable setup they'd have been scrambling for a coalition.

'If we insist on having a single seat system, then there should be ranked choice voting to ensure majority support for a candidate.'

Direct quote from the very first response I gave that included a solution. All I did was expand on that afterwards to say I would prefer a wider reform.

You *literally* asked how else it should work.

Okay, and? We're obviously not just talking about this one election, but about the generalities of how it *should* work. You're just being obtuse and acting like better things aren't possible, we should just accept that 28% support for a winning candidate is fine forever.

Like, stop acting as if this is some bold uncharted territory, and not a solved problem in most European countries, including in both Scotland and Wales!

I am suggesting that we reconsider the whole system. If we insist on having a single seat system, then there should be ranked choice voting to ensure majority support for a candidate. But better than we move to some sort of multi seat STV, so results are proportional at national level.

This means that whether your views will ever have *any* local representation at all depends on the lottery of where you live, and whether you have *national* representation depends often on a relatively small number of swing seats.

Good proportional systems resolve both issues.

The average constituency seat in the UK either never has political representation for a fraction of voters because it's ultra safe for one party, or it's a marginal that has disproportionate power at national level by swinging elections, but in turn represents less than half its own electorate.

So? It has the same electoral system as the other 649 - this 'one seat' replicated across the UK determines the government.

I've never understood the obsession with FPTP in the UK and US as if it's a *good* system and not just an easy one. Most of the developed world has moved on for a reason.

6,500. A direct switch counts for two votes - one less for Labour, one more for whoever they move to. Combine direct switching with disillusioned voters staying home and generally low by election turnout, and someone may very well beat Labour with under 13,000 votes *total*, never mind from switches

'One point between them' rather obfuscates the fact that none of them even clear 30%. Popular relative to the Monster Raving Looney Party - but not *actually* popular. If a general election was won on that vote share the same way I'd hardly call it a strong mandate.

Also this is, like, two days after Labour briefcase wanks were criticising Polanski doing a broadcast from a living room they thought looked *too* working class and northern or whatever

Standards matter. Every time a Labour MP - a Minister no less! - is able to say things like this, our standards drop little by little where they matter. Starmer should think about the political culture he wants to model from the top.

Utterly extraordinary that Hilary Cass on the BBC this morning said if some young people had "taken more time" they might not have pursued medical treatments, when her own report last year found that children routinely faced multi-year waiting lists for gender services.

I think the most consistent pattern in legal cases in the past year is a complete refusal by judges to take trans people's human rights seriously. The consequences of being named publicly as a trans person in a high profile case were dismissed for both Dr Upton and Rose Henderson.

This is really sad. I just feel so despairing about this and the fact that this profound failure won't be recognised as such by most politicians.

This level of depravity is monstrous.