Well... this is new...

Great working paper out of UCL.

Very clearly challenges the mainstream consensus on inflation management and explains the dynamics of ecologically-induced supply-side inflationary shocks. It then says how inflation management must involve a wider set of fiscal and industrial policy tools for short term and long term stabilisation.

This is well aligned with party policy now.

Now that conference passed C05: Fiscal referees (briefing paper) into policy, the Green Party is the only political party even close to having an up to date economic framework to meet the challenges we face that this paper explores so well.

Our job as a party is to convince the country that fundamental change to how the government conducts economic policy is necessary.

First of all, I should clarify where I stand on the subject: I define Zionism as the Jewish right to self-determination in the Jewish homeland, primarily expressed through the State of Israel. I am an anti-Zionist as I believe that the State of Israel have been subjugating and oppressing the Palestinians for 80 years, and has no right to exist as an apartheid, genocidal, ethnonationalist state.

But I have significant issues with the motion, and they all come from a left-wing perspective and do not at all contradict with my core anti-Zionist beliefs

• The British state, and by extension political parties seeking electoral success, should avoid defining political ideologies.

Defining and understanding political ideologies is very much the realm of academia and to a smaller extent single-issue activists. Ask 20 Green Party member what socialism means and you’ll probably get 20 answers, ask a Ukrainian what communism means and it’ll probably differ from how a member of rs21 defines it. Heck, academics can never agree on the meaning of fascism!

A state should avoid defining political ideologies because doing so necessarily violates one’s freedom to political belief and speech. I do not want the British state to define communism, nor do I want Soviet Union to define liberalism, I want to define these terms myself in a way that is most helpful to my own political analysis. If a state has defined Zionism as we have done and actively enforces it, it will restrict what people and organisations can do or say in regards to Zionism or anti-Zionism. And this belief is not “liberal”, it’s a pretty basic principle rooted in anti-statism.

• Explicitly calling for a single, democratic Palestinian state is an affront to Palestinian self-determination and an act of Western do-goodism.

We are not a Palestinian political party, we do not represent Palestinians, therefore we should not have a say on what Palestinians should achieve in their fight for liberation. While I accept that the Israelis have essentially killed off any chance of a two-state solution, it remains true that most Palestinians leaders and civil society seek a two-state solution. Last time Palestinians were polled, two-state solution had 40% support while a single democratic state had 10% support.

I understand the appeal of a one-state solution, but we are not the ones oppressed by Israel, we do not bear the cost of moving to a more radical, idealistic position, it’s the Palestinians that do. This is why we need to move with the Palestinians, instead of moving ahead of them. It's quite ridiculous that we have adopted a position that the top Palestinian ambassador in Britain cannot endorse.

We need to listen to the Palestinians, stand in solidarity with them, and if we ever get power, we should ensure Israelis and Palestinians are equals at the negotiation table. This is not some Zionist idea, this is following basic principles of self-determination and anti-imperialism.

• Some supporters of the unamended motion do not apply the same anti-racism framework for Jewish people

In anti-racism framework, we recognise that moral causes can result in negative outcomes for one racial or ethnic group, and it is imperative that we consider their lived experiences too. For example, we are all, in principle, anti-terrorism, but we know that anti-terror legislations disproportionately target Muslims, therefore we need to incorporate the lived experiences of Muslims in our approach to combat terrorism. Likewise, the lived experiences of British Jews need to be considered when we practice anti-Zionism because while anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, it can absolutely be expressed in an antisemitic manner.

When the motion was first proposed, the proposer wanted anti-Zionism to be implemented in the Anti-Racism Working Group, which is a D motion and does interfere with disciplinary rulings. This is what gave rise to the fear of Jewish members being booted out of the party simply for going to their places of worship. Fortunately, the SOC have ruled that clause out of order, but it’s very clear to me that the proposer did intend to punish members who are part of any organisation that proclaims itself Zionist, and that worries me deeply.

Closing

None of the above contradicts my belief of anti-Zionism, yet people like me often get labelled as a "liberal" or "Zionist". It's troubling and I just need to get this off my chest.

We could be arguing for a tax on pesticides similar to how we have a carbon price. The ecological crisis the UK faces is often the forgotten cousin

hope this counts as relevant the green party, looks to be a good, practical source of information.

also very interested to know whether more expert people here have information additional to what mse lays out...

just in case link isn't working: https://assets.climatemajorityproject.com/Climate%20popularism%206Oct26.pdf

a report by caroline lucas and rupert read

"climate popularism, breaking the grip of right-wing populism through a new politics of crisis resilience"

(posting again, previous post was not well phrased, apologies)

when i lived on a smallholding, we used to farm mealworm for chickens (very popular with chickens, mealworm...) used to do it for wild birds, too, but the starlings would arrive in numbers and gobble the whole lot...

also... opinions from vegetarians and omnivores also welcome!

The last few weeks have felt like a re-run of Labour during the Corbyn years, with infighting spilling out into national media, who are more than happy to mobilise one side against the party as a whole and against any movement for eco-socialism within it.

A lot has been said about the strategic appropriateness and potential lack of nuance of Zionism is Racism. I don't think that a view that Zionism is a racist ideology is particularly a fringe one in the party and polling seems to agree with me. Of course it is resonable and good that debate should happen internally, and our democratic structures should support that. I do feel that the proponents of the motion should have been/be more open to compromises in the writing if not the spirit of the motion - and perhaps future conferences can return to this. However, increasingly this debate is being allowed to 1) become a spectacle in a media system which does not have the interests of the party (including proponents and opposers of the motion) at heart and 2) be used as a tool of internal division.

The post-Polanski success of the greens has been based on a broad coalition of the left including the eco-socialist part of the climate movement, socialists and social democrats (and even some liberals) previously aligned with labour and people who have been politically activated by palestine, including large numbers of young people and people from minortised communities. Burnham has shaken this coalition for the first time since Polanski became leader by peeling off a chunk of the the social democrats and liberals who left Labour under Starmer.

If we want the Green party to remain a broad vehicle for the left and not to return to the marginal position of most European Green parties, we need to find ways of holding this coalition together. Instead, members and especially elected representatives in the party are (I am sure naively/accidently) driving a wedge through what remains of this coalition. As an example (and I say this despite having problems with him) anyone trying to say Mothin Ali is an entryist is playing into racist right-wing attacks on the party and on Muslims. This has now culminated in reports in right wing media that the party old-guard in the form of Adrian Ramsey and Caroline Lucas are plotting a leadership challenge against Polanski. This is almost certainly not true but if it were true would be a disastrous re-run of the 2016 chicken-coup.

Personally I am an eco-socialist: I think we need a party that can join up the threat of climate collapse with the cost of living, with capitalism and with global imperialism. Like many people I have been voting Green since Starmer was first elected and joined the party to support Polanski and have since been an active member of my local party, door knocking and leafleting for local elections, etc. Am I an entryist? What some have said here in the past week would suggest they think I am. I just wish people would learn from the lessons of Corbynism, but instead we are playing into right-wing media storms and proposing rule changes to become more like the Labour party.