Mailwatch(ed) Forum

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 9:54 pm I sort of get the sentiment but like I would add caveats and I certainly wouldn’t post it during an election campaign.

Indeed, voters don't really like politicians who 'tell it like it is' beyond abusing immigrants.
It is an interesting question as to whether it even matters if the human race died off. Probably not as long as we record the entire history of human endeavor for passing aliens to enjoy.

There's always been an element of misanthropy to the environmental movement.

Dalem Lake wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 10:28 pm "Laugh off your hamburger"

??? What ???

It's a dig at the beef industry. Specifically the global demand for cheap beef which means lots of cow farts pumping methane into the atmosphere and also large swathes of the rainforest being chopped down to provide cheap grazing land for cattle which leads to even more farting.

Good Lord, he's spoken about climate change.

Backsliding on climate would drive Labour into obscurity, Zack Polanski says

Typically, it's the political opportunity that interests him. The idea that drilling is even "backsliding" is nonsense to me anyway. What matters is consumption emissions. We're doing pretty well on those.

Is subsidising energy costs for everyone in a worldwide supply crisis "backsliding on climate", Zack?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Is subsidising energy costs for everyone in a worldwide supply crisis "backsliding on climate", Zack?

How would he know? He only says stuff because he thinks it sounds good and will play well with his base. He's a populist, not a thinker.

I really do hope we don’t shift on that, keeping Ed Miliband in that area would be a welcomed move when Burnham moves in.

The cult below the line don't like this story, I see. One tells us this stuff is "failing to land". That isn't what his latest ratings are saying.

Oh, don't worry, nothing morally bad happened.

We might be in for the silliest season since records began.

It's the nights that will be the toughest. These could eclipse the ministry of silly walks and donkey sanctuaries.

So it's totally unimportant that the leader of a party isn't registered to vote? I don't think we've got much to worry about from this end.

He's on £60k a year as a London Assembly member. What's snobbish about saying he ought to have registered to vote and paid council tax?

The Greens seem to be telling lies again.

He was concerned that someone at the caahncil might find out where he was living and realise he wasn't paying council tax.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2026 11:00 am The Greens seem to be telling lies again.

Oh dear, nicking BS excuses off Farage. Zack is in a jam.

Quite. Mrs B and I just selected "exclude from public electoral roll" when we registered to vote. But no doubt his fans will rush to defend him, just as they do Farage.

So is Polanski still not registered to vote? If he is, what's changed?
Why has he only raised security concerns shortly after he's heard Farage say it?
As Jo Cox and David Ames taught us, all MPs are potentially targets for terrorists, do "security concerns" mean none of them are on the electoral role, if they are, what's special about Polanski?

Polanski and Farage really are the two sides of the same coin.

It would appear that at least some Green officials aren't overly impressed with the quality of the tankies who have flocked to the Party since the populist prick took over, and seem to be aware that the tankie twats will never agree on anything sensible.

Senior Greens are examining ways to revamp the party’s structures to make it more effective and representative now its membership has more than tripled since Zack Polanski became leader.

Under the party’s direct-democracy model, policy is voted on only by members who attend one of its two annual conferences, a system some Greens believe risks empowering organised fringe activists who make the effort to travel to the events...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-polanski

But... Reading on reveals they may be attempting to create a clusterfuck similar to Your Party.

While no decisions have been made, one possibility would be for local parties to nominate delegates to speak and vote on behalf of members. Another option would be to keep one-member democracy, but allow online voting.

When Polanski became leader of the party in England and Wales last September, it had about 68,000 members. Now it has more than 230,000.

“There is a conversation in the sense that a lot of people are saying: the party has changed a lot, and the structures haven’t changed with it,” one Green official said.

“At the moment, the system of in-person voting means it just involves the members who can afford to book a hotel and take some days off work – it’s quite self-selecting. This has always been the case, but it’s more disproportionate now it’s not 1,000 people out of 68,000, but 1,000 out of 230,000.”...

Hopefully they'll squabble their way to political irrelevance (like the Fruit and Nut), ditch the populist prick, and reinvent themselves as a Green Party. I hope the disaster occurs and the reinvention happens sooner rather than later. A Green Party which cares about Green issues would be quite something.

But, but... then who'll become the "Only Palestine matters, nothing else" party?