The backlash must be because the debate was not respectful of trans people… right?

This is Worcester, Massachusetts, rather than Worcester, England. Not sure if it belongs in this channel.

That said, TERFs can fuck right off.

That would be annoying. We’d lose access to Microsoft and Apple products. Some businesses would lose a lot of their customer-bases (if applied to the whole country).

That said, I doubt he has the balls to do it at that scale. If he did, I don’t think it would last long.

I hope the UK and others don’t fold. We should continue to build our independence from the US.

The Telegraph

Ewwww

Anybody who says anti-Zionism is antisemitism, like this chief Rabbi here, outs themselves as a colonialism and genocide supporter. We should not listen to them as they are either maliciously complicit or incapable of introspection and empathy.

Those who are simply uncomfortable with the motion (this can be understandable for the uninformed) must be reassured that the Greens stand against antisemitism.

If you can’t separate Judaism from Zionism, and condemn the latter, perhaps we don’t want you in the party.

It should be noted that the motion doesn’t say that Jews cannot live in Palestine (including what is currently Israel), but rather that it cannot be theirs exclusively. It states that Zionism, the belief that there should be a state exclusively for one people, is racism.

Zionists, it’s seems, cannot or refuse to see that nuance.

Jews are welcome in the party, Zionism is not.

We’re already overstepping our boundaries by arming Israel

Well yes, as a country, we should be sanctioning Israel as a whole to put an end to that. To make it illegal to do such a thing, rather than just wagging our fingers.

Calling out a genocide where we see one and fully divesting from it is one thing.

I don’t think that necessarily gives us the go ahead to tell other countries how to resolve their problems. That, and I think the world is not really ready to hear this. We risk alienating people, even if we are right.

You might call me a coward, or a centrist or something, but I wonder if this was a smart move. There are some things I want us to have very clear policies on: environmantalism, support of LGTBQ people, being against genocide etc. I don’t want to cater to or placate Zionists. I just wonder if we overstretched here and may have shot ourselves in the foot around getting support from less informed or more moderate Greens.

Seems like that’s exactly what’s happening, to some extent: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/oct/05/green-party-england-wales-zionism-racism-vote-europe-germany though the Greens in Germany are pretty far gone.

I posted this to the United Kingdom community here but for some reason it was deleted almost immediately. I’m not sure why as the mods haven’t said.

I somewhat agree with the “Zionism is racism” stance. Depending on how you define Zionism, it is very akin to white nationalism: You want to create a nation exclusively for one group of people, to the detriment of everyone else. We see the genocidal approach that has resulted from this dangerous viewpoint.

Could it be that in some world Zionism could be peaceful? Maybe, maybe not. That’s not the world we live in though.

I can see where the motion is coming from. That said, is it for us in the UK to say that a one-state solution is the correct one? I think that’s overstepping our boundaries.

Saying genocide is unacceptable would have been enough imo. Saying Zionism is bad I think is also reasonable. I’m not sure about solutionizing from afar.

I might just be behind the times.

I look over at France, who have managed to keep their energy prices low and keep their independence thanks to their large amount of Nuclear energy, and I’m jealous.

Maybe we have fixed the energy storage issue now, and I’m just not aware of it. It’s not my area of expertise.

I genuinely want us to have more renewables, but I was still under the impression that you needed a “base” energy source to round things out. I don’t want that to be coal or gas, so nuclear seems like the lesser evil.

But if that’s no longer an issue, then great!

That might be a parental control setting you can turn off, for what it’s worth. I’m pretty sure I used Mullvad under Virgin, but that was some time back.

Believe women… But not Shabana Mahmood… about the experience of other women… Which she is known for loving to deport.

Only workers create wealth, capitalists steal it.

I’ve heard from people in trans groups that part of the reason this work is being doing to collect data is because there are notions in the UK transphobia circles to ban trans affirming surgeries even for adults, arguing it is against the hypocratic oath (do no harm).

Never give ground to transphobes. They won’t give up until trans people are eradicated.

Anecdotally, I can say that I know multiple trans people who have gone to Madrid, Spain for surgery, often to the same doctor, instead of getting treatment in the UK.

The backlogs in the UK can go as far as 10 years and be grueling and humiliating via the public route, sometimes requiring going through conversion therapy.

The private route is very expensive, double the price in Spain. In Spain I’ve heard is about £5k for top surgery. The recovery period can mean losing independence for weeks or months.

Still, many choose to do it. It could be avoidable if we hadn’t banned HRT and puberty blockers for children. Instead they are forced to bear the brunt of societies failings.

However, a central option under consideration for young people is removing the health element of universal credit for claimants under 25, which has already been almost halved to £217 a month, and offering intensive support for people to get into work. The possibility of removing it for existing claimants – not just new ones – is being looked at.

One possible plan is for a separate regime to apply to the under-25 agegroup, with reduced or withdrawn entitlements – although those with the most severe and debilitating disabilities would not lose any money.

Officials have also been returning to the idea of cuts to the Motability scheme at a future budget, after axing tax breaks worth £300m. The scheme allows disabled people to use their Pip benefit to lease new cars for three years.

I don’t think I have to say this, but PIP is not a benefit linked to employment, age or income. The reason being it’s to combat the costs disabled people face over a led people. It’s about fairness. Putting conditions on it inherently creates an unfair system.

The idea that restricting it for under 25s is pure discrimination. I happen to know a lot of people in their 20s with disabilities that prevent them from working. How exactly does it make sense for you to cut their lifeline to encourage them to work?

You can say “most severe and debilitating disabilities would not lose any money”, but who will be the judge of that? “Sorry, we don’t believe your disability is severe enough for you to receive support”. Disabled people should not have to sue their councils and governments to get access to the care they need, yet that already happens even before these changes come into effect. This will only make it worse.

One interesting note: sometimes disabled people are kept in housing that is not accessible for years, requiring social care that they would not otherwise need.

You could reduce the amount of spend on social care by building accessible social housing and offering it to disabled people, and this increase in independence would likely improve the mental health of those people, allowing them to contribute to society in whatever way they can.

Unfortunately these resources are typically granted by charities, rather than the government, so they don’t have a lot of money to start with.

Trying to make it easier to get jobs is good and all, we definitely need more and better entry-level jobs, but there are some people who cannot work because they are carers, parents or disabled.

This administration has continued to talk about cutting support for disabilities, after doing exactly that under Starmer. What that does is make disabled people homeless as they have to choose between housing and medicine or food. They are unable to make it out fo the house anymore, so they can’t work. It’s way more expensive than just giving people support.

People with mental health issues, the ones most targetted, have their help taken away or denied, preventing them from being able to recover and hold a job.

If the administration really wanted people to get back to work, they would vastly increase the funding and availability of mental health services and the NHS. They would make easier to get benefits and housing so you don’t get stuck in a beurocratic spiral instead of getting better.

A healthy public is a productive one.

I just don’t trust the current Labour. I called Labour under Starmer “Forced Labour” and a change in Leader does not feel like it is enough. Shabana Mahmood and Wes Streeting still hold positions of power, is this really a new government? So far, it’s better than Starmer, but disabled people, trans people and poor people always fall through the cracks or are actively abused. I’ll believe this administration is different when I see it.

Yeah I put money in a Help To Buy ISA for 8 years, only to find out that the government scheme only applies for first time homes under £200k… How many homes nowadays are under £200k?! Mine sure wasn’t.

Who could have seen this coming? /s

First it was children, then teenagers, now young adults. Transphobes will not stop until trans people are eradicated.

Don’t. Give. One. Inch.