For those of us who have been officers of Local Parties, Associated Organisations or any of the other myriad bodies across the Party who hold elections, this is the time of year when things change, and the cycle of persuading people to hold the positions that keep the show on the road begins anew.
But as someone who hasn’t been perhaps as active as in years past, I can now be a bit more relaxed. People don’t necessarily ask me to be things, they ask me to run their elections instead. And that reminds me that the Party relies on a cadre of people who are often filling a variety of roles alongside holding public office, careers, caring responsibilities, other voluntary roles, you name it, they do it. We often don’t value our volunteers sufficiently and, as a result, lose valuable skills and experience.
In a world where political parties are more regulated than ever before, having serious people holding critical roles is more important than ever before because, whilst getting people elected is at the core of a political party’s purpose, somebody has to keep the organisational, financial and campaigning show that supports that on the road.
That’s not the Green Party I remember…
In itself, the decision by Green Party members to endorse the idea that Zionism is racism probably wouldn’t make much of an impression on the British electorate. If you asked most people to define Zionism, they’d probably associate it with Judaism but not be able to explain why or what the difference is.
It will matter because, regardless of that, the British media will use it as an excuse to beat a left-wing political party with a stick, thus bringing the issue to a wider audience.
In this instance, it is deserved though, especially as the Greens were given an opportunity to send a message to their Jewish members that the new policy didn’t force them to choose between their politics and their faith, and wilfully chose not to take it.
For Zionism comes in many forms and reflects the diversity of opinion within Judaism itself. The fact that some racists claim to be Zionists does not in itself make all Zionists racists, something so self-evidently obvious that most sensible politicians disavowed the link years ago.
What it does highlight is how the influx of socialist-minded people into the Greens has changed the party significantly in a short space of time and is a reminder of how vulnerable most political parties are to what might best be described as entryism. It doesn’t take too many new members to overwhelm the theoretical checks that should be carried out to maintain, if not political purity, then at least philosophical adherence.
The Greens have just learned that the hard way.
So much for bipartisanship, Ed?
I’m not the first person to wonder why our formal response to Andy Burnham’s big conference speech was not so much lukewarm as cynical. And for those of us who have been around long enough, the idea that a Labour leader’s speech means that our response should be to lie on our backs and have our tummies tickled is for the birds.
But grown-up politics means offering a warmer response to something which looks like positive movement on an issue we’ve campaigned loudly on over recent years. Yes, the triple lock should be part of the discussion if it has served its purpose, be it adaptation or removal. More targeted support for those pensioners still in poverty might be a more effective use of funds if it acts to free funds for the investment in social care that we’ve been demanding.
We need to be in the room to see exactly what Andy Burnham and his team are proposing and to influence it as effectively as we can, enabling a broader public national debate, and our Leader seems to have turned his face against that. I can’t say that I’m not disappointed.
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ian Anderson on the old hippies who used punk to get on in music
Greens split over 'Zionism is racism' policy
What do Britain's death-penalty cheerleaders have to say about Christa Pike?
A Week in Politics #8
Rees Southern
Matt (Bristol)
Alex Macfie
Chris Caswill
Nonconformistradical
11 Comments
To my mind, any political philosophy that believes that members of one race should be removed from an area to enable members of another race to move in and live there instead, is racist. Why is it controversial to say so?
The political message that the triple lock sent in 2010 to employees was that you will not need to have a private pension (SIPP) as well as the state and automatic enrolment pensions to have a decent retirement.
Didn’t we have the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform in 1998? Tony Blair was really enthusiastic before following every Labour leader for nearly a century in kicking reform into the long grass. Ed Davey may sound cynical today but in 12 months time he will be seen as realistic.
Mark, don’t always agree with you, but I’d agree with every word here.
The other thing that jars about Ed Davey’s tone in response to Burnham is that he could have said the same thing in considerably nicer words (we’re not sure we trust where this is going but its nice that you’re thinking about it, we’re in if you’re really going to work with us, and this needs to work for the whole country, not just your voters and activists), and it seems at odds with his constructive approach at some recent PMQs.
Jana, I agree..
The one thing that antisemites and Zionists have in common is the desire to equate Zionism with Judaism..
Agree with you, Mark. To quote an old Liberal slogan, ‘It’s time for a change’…… at the top.
“To my mind, any political philosophy that believes that members of one race should be removed from an area to enable members of another race to move in and live there instead, is racist.”
I agree.
“Why is it controversial to say so?”
It is “controversial” to advocate that Israel be “replaced” by a single Palestinian state, as the Greens have now done. That would of course mean the mass expulsion of Jews. That is also “controversial” because it is plainly blind to reality. It ain’t never going to happen.
It is “controversial” to vote down an amendment that would allow British Jews to worship in synagogues without inevitably being condemned as “racist”, just because some fellow worshippers might perhaps reasonably be condemned as racist.
Somehow, the Greens have managed to comment on mass slaughter in Gaza, and to do so in a way which is grossly over-the-top and unfair to British Jews. Amongst other things, that’s a masterpiece of political shooting-yourself-in-the-foot.
We need a proper Green movement to lead the fight against climate change. We no longer have one.
@David Allen not for the first time I wish there was a like button on this site.
David Allen 5th Oct ’26 – 1:50pm………..It is “controversial” to advocate that Israel be “replaced” by a single Palestinian state, as the Greens have now done……….
I agree.
BUT, why then, is it NOT controversial to support Zionism which, since it’s inception calls for a “Single Israeli state’, as per Genesis 15:18–21, and the expulsion of Arabs?
Expats, I agree with you. The first sentence of Jana’s post, with which I completely agree, didn’t explicitly contain the word “Zionism”, but that’s what she was referring to.
Europe (and not only Nazi Germany) salved its conscience post 1945 for centuries of antisemitic discrimination by supporting Zionism. It would of course have been very hard to deny that the survivors of the Holocaust deserved a new start. Nevertheless, the Europeans who supported the formation of Israel should have recognised the problems that could cause, and they didn’t.
In any case, the genocidal behaviour of Netanyahu’s government should now have completely dissipated any residual sympathy we might have felt for the Zionist movement.
What we should do – and what the Greens have signally failed to do – is to combine contempt for Netanyahu with a steely determination to avoid antisemitic discrimination against British Jews.
The Green Party has been captured by similar forces to those that did the same thing to Labour during the Corbyn era. The problem they will have in the future is that publicity around their more outlandish policies will alienate many of their voters in the more rural areas. In urban ones they benefited greatly from the unpopularity of Starmer, now he’s gone they will have more difficulty winning over Labour voters.
Zac Polanski has put himself at the head of this new movement, his entry into the contest in Holborn and St Pancras suggests he has been drinking his own Kool Aid. He will almost certainly lose on Thursday which will weaken him, he has unleashed forces that he can’t control and in the end they could turn on him.
The Green Party motion was a great example of the dishonesty that puts a lot of people off Politics. At no point does it actually call for the Dissolution of Israel but that is clearly the implication. Of course a more honest motion would probably not have passed.
The big question we should ask of any Political idea is how does it help ? Clearly The Zionism motion is not about helping anyone , its a gesture, a piece of fist-waving.