WATERMELON AUTUMN 2025 ONLINE EDITION

AUTUMN 2025 ONLINE EDITION 

Green Left is an anti-capitalist, ecosocialist group within the Green Party of England & Wales. Membership is open to all GPEW members,. All views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Green Left.

Image by Geaeme Mac Kayⓒ

How should the Green Party respond to the Party set up by Jeremy Corbyn & Zarah Sultana - fight or co-operate?

By Roy Sandison

Greens supporting Salma Yaqoob’s General Election campaign in 2010

A new left party is now being formed under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana. At this early stage of it’s called ‘Your Party’,

They exploded onto the scene with 700,000 people wanting more information, showing poll rating ratings up to 15% and cutting into Green polling levels. It’s not the same as the insular TUSC* group and Green activists need to beware of falling into this view. It could become a large broad left party, and we will need to deal with it seriously 

Corbyn got more votes than Starmer.

It needs to be noted that in General Elections under an unfair electoral system, Labour under Corbyn twice got more votes than Starmer. Plus, many Green members and voters will be overjoyed to see Corbyn challenging Starmer. Some of those 700,000 wanting more information will be Green Party members and voters. If ‘Your Party’ does become a Broad Left formation in terms of membership and support we will need to be rational in our attitude to how elections are contested without PR and we and it needs to some agreement, or both our parties could cancel themselves out.

Zarah Sultana, an Ecosocialist may need us

As it stands the Co-Leader Zarah Sultana may struggle to win her seat in Coventry - Zarah needs Green friends to have a better chance of staying as a brilliant MP who is great on Climate Change, Just Transition, Public Services and Peace. 

A strong broad left challenge highlighting positive issues that the electorate care about, could cut across Starmer’s Labour and Reform and make serious gains. We could add to our MPs by coming to some agreement and continue on our core task to stop climate change.

Greens Standing Down – It Must Come From Below!

It’s very important for Greens to have a political strategy that uses elections in the best interests of the movement. Every action we take must be seen in this light and not handed down from above. Local members must decide.

Any discussion with ‘Your Party’ must take into account that the Green Party is a much stronger than it has been before and has made great progress in the elections with 4 MPs, other elected positions as well as 860 Councillors – including leading Councils. The party also finished 2^nd in 40 seats and is therefore likely the best placed left vote in those constituencies.

The Salma Yaqoob decision 

Back in 2010, the excellent well known peace campaigner Salma Yaqoob approached Greens and ecosocialists in the Green Party about considering not standing against her in the Birmingham Hall Green.

She presented good sound political policy to us, with material produced, and by 85% to 15% in a ballot local party members voted in the constituency to withdraw our candidate. Green Party members did work for her, and Salma almost won the seat. Today, with Labour voters not so easily, conned she would have won.

* Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

SOME REACTIONS TO THE ELECTION OF ZACK POLANSKI

·      · Very happy I am so pleased that the Green Party membership is impressively progressive. PS

  ·     ‘That’s very good news. I feared for the Greens future if they didn’t win as I think we would have haemorrhaged support to Your Party. I now see us as working as part of a progressive bloc whilst maintaining our own independent brand’ MM

·      ·   ‘‘Really hoping that this result encourages members NOT to consider leaving to join any other party, but that our party will work with others and consider election pacts in the right circumstances. this gives a great chance for the Greens to become a truly wonderful eco Socialist party that offers real hope and a home to Eco Socialists, Trade Unionists, minorities etc.’ M Hollinrake

 ·      ‘Massive victory for the left in the GPEW’.RS

 ·      ‘The relationship between the movement orientated new Leadership team and the Westminster Green MPs and Baronesses is going to be crucial and challenging for the Political Committee.’ MF

·      ‘In the context of Your Party's emergence, eventually into a real party, James Schneider has some important insights here, https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/building-the-party.’LL

 ·      'First of all, a huge congratulations and very best wishes  A coalition of the left, a coalition for changes & hopes must be considered’ Muhammad Rashid's post in Green Left

 ·      ‘Glad he’s making a big point about NHS and water nationalisation. Winning policies imo’. MR

 ·      ‘A coalition of the left, a coalition for changes & hopes are welcomed’ ANON.

 ·      ‘Congratulations to Zack Polanski on your stunning victory. Your campaign took on the rich and powerful, stood up for the dignity of all marginalised communities, and gave people hope! Real change is coming. I look forward to working with you to create a fairer, kinder world.’ Jeremy Corbyn (epdosnoStrh2h931ll04h04ci0umi0710au07flgg0t494fh05t811g2ft2l)

 ·      ‘Great news re. Zack Polanski’s victory - here’s to a really effective Red-Green alliance!’ Alan Todd”   

 ·      The election of Zack Polanski as leader of the Greens is a breath of fresh air in English politics. Hopefully he will work with the new party to crush the growing threat of Fascism and to address the global climate crisis” Jozef: Strategy Officer for Transform Party and member of Anti-Capitalist Resistance

·      ‘ …on climate, I strongly suspect that he is going to shout much more loudly than has been the case before about the need for radical action to address the failure to tackle climate change, which is now all too clearly the policy of Ed Miliband and the Labour Party’, Richard Murphy

·      ‘Break out the hummus: the Green Party has a new leader. The Daily T Podcast’

·      ‘With the election of Zack Polanski by an overwhelming 85 per cent vote, the Green Party of England and Wales has stepped decisively into the trap of becoming a green version of the Socialist Workers Party’. John Rentoul, The Independent 2/9/25

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

WILL THE GREEN LEADERSHIP ELECTION RESULT LEAD TO A RED-GREEN ALLIANCE?  Mike Shaugnessy

Zack Polanski’s impressive landslide victory to become the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales offers the possibility of an unprecedented left electoral alliance at future elections. Polanski secured 20,411 votes against his rivals Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay’s joint candidacy of 3,705 votes. Polanski campaigned on the platform of ‘eco-populism’ which he described as being bolder and more radical than the party’s traditional image of being nice and uncontroversial. In his victory speech, after the result was announced, he said that he would look to build a ‘green left’ movement. Polanski also labelled the current Labour government’s policies as ‘despicable.’

During the leadership campaign, Polanski said that he hoped to work with the embryotic Your Party which was announced over the summer by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. The new party says that close to a million people have signed up to their mailing list.

Meanwhile, the Greens have a base in local government with over 850 councillors already in place. Setting up a new party is no easy thing, and we are only three and a half years away from a General Election, an electoral alliance would benefit Your Party, if the will is there.    

The two parties share similar policies on taxing the wealthy, nationalising utilities, peace, Palestine/Israel, the environment, and a positive view of immigration, which augurs well. Paradoxically, it also raises hurdles to a cooperative approach to elections, since both parties appeal to the same type of voters, ex Labour, who tend to live in the same type of Parliamentary constituencies, that is urban areas in the main. Polling puts the Greens as being big losers if the new party is listed as an option.  

The ’Green surge’ of 2015, where the Green Party’s membership grew rapidly from less than 20,000 to 70,000 turned into a Corbyn surge when he stood for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2016. Many left leaning Green members defected to Labour making it much more difficult for the left in the Green Party to have influence in the party.

The Green Party finished second to Labour in 40 seats at last year’s General Election, 18 of which are in London. The party won Bristol Central at the election, and this constituency illustrates the trend. Formerly Bristol West before boundary changes for the 2025 election, the seat was a target for the Greens who looked on course to win the seat from Labour, until Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, who won easily in 2017 and 2019. The other two seats in Bristol also had strong Green votes last year.

So, for such an electoral alliance to be formed, some give and take will be needed. My observations of the British left over the years doesn’t make me overly optimistic that they can cooperate successfully, for very long. Political history is littered with sectarian splits on the left, the RESPECT Party comes quickly to mind, but there were others before that too.

There is hope though. Corbyn has said that the new party will cooperate with the Greens and now Polanski’s elevation to Green Party leader makes this more likely. Polling also suggests that supporters of the Greens and Your Party want such a red green alliance, with 31% of Britons saying they would consider voting for a united ticket.

One thing is for sure, this country desperately needs a strong ecosocialist electoral presence, as the Labour party dances to Nigel Farage’s xenophobic tune. The tide of British politics needs to turn from the ever-rightward drift of recent years, from rip off privatised public services to callous immigration policies, we can do it, if we come TOGETHER.   (Originally from https://londongreenleft.blogspot.com/2025/09/will-green-leadership-election-result.html)

“Opposing Labour’s climate vandalism is difficult – and vital”, 

Let’s oppose the Labour government’s climate vandalism

By Les Levidow

The Labour government accepts that oil and gas extraction will increase, and that domestic uses will increase. Yet ministers claim that their policy favours clean energy for decarbonisation and thus progress towards Net Zero Emissions. The government’s dirty-energy policy has hardly been contested by climate campaigns. Why?

This article analyses how the government agenda has combined three false promises, namely: that novel decarbonisation technologies plus more renewable energy will achieve Net Zero Emissions (NZE). These three deceptions together maintain a mirage of a low-carbon, green transition. Let’s examine each deception in turn.

1. Future technofixes perpetuating fossil fuels

Over the past decade, the fossil fuel industry has largely abandoned its previous denial of anthropogenic climate change, alongside a strategic shift towards promoting carbon-removal technologies. This future scenario provides a rationale to rebrand natural gas as a ‘transition fuel’for the foreseeable future. Western governments (among others) have embraced this narrative in recent years, thus postponing efforts to phase out fossil fuels.

The flagship technofix, Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS), will supposedly break down natural gas into CO2, which will be stored, and hydrogen, which can be used as a low-carbon fuel and be flexibly stored or transported through natural gas infrastructure. This technological promise lacks a credible track record; it remains to demonstrate feasibility on a large scale.

Before the Labour Party gained power in the UK, it had promised a £28 billion annual fund for green industries. This included substantial funds to retrofit buildings and instal insulation, thus cheapening warm homes and avoiding energy wastage.

After the 2024 election, the Labour government drastically reduced the figure, while allocating most of it to CCUS rather than other uses that would bring people faster benefits. In response, all environmental campaigns should demand that the UK government cease funding CCUS, including ‘research’ investigating the wrong questions. Such campaigns should also support resistance, including court cases.

This leads us to the second deception.

2. Renewable energy supplementing fossil fuels

Renewable energy (RE) has been expanding in most Western countries. Yet it plays a deceptive role in decarbonisation policy, for several reasons. Globally, electricity usage has been rising faster than renewable sources – which largely supplement fossil fuels, rather than replace them. Along similar lines, UK energy demand has been rising, especially for electricity. The rise has had several drivers: adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), the electrification of heating systems, energy-intensive industries and especially data centres.

Thanks to the way that the wholesale market is regulated, the UK’s energy prices are largely set according to the gas price. That in turn is linked to the oil price; both gas and oil prices are kept high to facilitate extraction.

As renewable energy lowers its production costs, it gains higher profits. Meanwhile consumers gain no economic benefit, and fossil fuel extraction retains its incentives. The future promise of lower prices lacks credibility in people’s experience, thus limiting public support for a decarbonisation policy.

Even as the supply of renewable energy increases, the overall system may prioritise fossil fuels,which is more profitable for producers and can less easily be turned off than renewable energy sources, especially given the inadequate storage capacity.

In all those ways, renewable energy provides a mirage of decarbonisation, while largely complementing fossil fuels. Meanwhile the overall rising emissions are disguised or excused,leading us to the third deception.

3. Net Zero Emissions (NZE) undermining climate targets

The term NZE originally meant phasing out fossil fuels as far as technically possible, while also cancelling out residual emissions with carbon-removal measures or carbon credits. But Western countries have stretched the original meaning to accommodate a much larger ‘net’ figure,significantly expanding the future emissions that will supposedly be swapped or removed. This wider change underlies the UK government’s dirty-energy plans, which thereby undermine thedecarbonisation commitment of the Climate Change Act 2008.

The dirty-fuel expansion involves a false dual narrative: that countries can ‘overshoot’ the earlier timetable for decarbonisation targets and then catch up later. How? Through hypothetical technoscientific solutions such as CCUS or geo-engineering. Such false solutions have become the problem. Consequently, the Net Zero concept has helped kill the aim to keep global warmingwithin 1.5 degrees.Rather than count (on) a compensatory catch-up, an international network has demanded real solutions to achieve ‘real zero’ emissions. This perspective opposes techno-optimist carbon-accounting with its false solutions.

4. Conclusion: technocratic greenwash versus system change

In sum, UK government policy facilitates expansion of fossil fuel extraction and use, while greenwashing the effects by combining three deceptions: future techno-fixes reducing carbon emissions, renewable energy replacing fossil fuels, and NZE justifying a later catch-up.

Why is opposition difficult? Here are three plausible reasons.

First, the three deceptions together reinforce the mirage of a green or climate transition.

Second, climate campaigns have urged government ‘to follow the science’, a misnomer for official expert advice. This has been ignored or questioned by Right-wing agendas denying anthropogenic climate change. So climate campaigners may be reluctant or unable to challenge official expert advice, even when complicit with techno-optimistic deceptions.

Third, a narrow political focus may help to avoid despair. Facing a strong dirty-energy alliance, effective opposition may seem difficult and even dangerous, especially given the sweeping criminalisation of climate activists. Rather than despair, it is more comfortable to miss the big picture by focusing on specific demands, which may seem safer and more winnable. Yet this fragmented approach remains politically weak.

In this spirit, we should focus on demands that government policy must differentiate energy prices according to their production cost, connect new renewable sources more rapidly, and prioritise renewable sources over natural gas and cease support for CCUS. Furthermore, it must promote and incentivise reductions in total energy usage. Governments should favour partnerships and expertise for real solutions for ‘real zero’.

The Ecologist, 5 September 2025,  https://the ecologist.org/2025/sep/05/power-people-0

 

□ Thanks for helpful comments from: Nicolas Beuret, Anne Gray, Nils Markussen and Simon Pirani.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE IHRA DEFINITION SERVES A RACIST PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA, SO LET’S REJECT IT. Les Levidow

In recent years, the so-called IHRA definition of antisemitism has become a pervasive weapon for promoting a racist pro-Israel agenda. The text includes four examples of ‘antisemitism’ associating Jews with Israel, as a basis to equate some anti-Israel statements with antisemitism.

Those conflations promote a racist stereotype of Jews as pro-Israel.

The stereotype serves a racist censure of historical truth. As a key example, it is supposedly antisemitic to characterize the Israeli state as ‘a racist endeavour’. This criterion suppresses the Palestinians’ narrative of how the Zionist settler-colonial apartheid regime has dispossessed them. The 2005 Palestinian call for BDS targeted international support for Israel’s settler-colonial apartheid regime; the latter characterisation is supposedly antisemitic, according to the IHRA’s Israel examples. Those examples have been used repeatedly to threaten, silence or discipline pro-Palestine activists in many institutions such as the Labour Party, universities, the public sector and even some trade unions.

Protest against IHRA definition at Labour Party NEC meeting, 2018

By conflating Israel with Jews, moreover, those examples lead some people to blame them for Israel’s crimes, thus worsening antisemitism. The IHRA definition cannot be used to counter antisemitism; that was never its real political aim. There is no valid anti-racist reason to include it in an organizational document.

Debate over the IHRA definition

For a long time, antisemitism was generally understood as ‘hostility towards Jews as Jews’. But this traditional definition was inadequate for the Zionist political agenda to brand Israel’s critics as antisemitic.

A key actor has been the American Jewish Committee (AJC) , a pro-Israel lobby group.  In 2004 it produced a brief ‘definition’ of antisemitism, followed by several examples (as above). According to its main author, Kenneth Stern, the motto ‘Apartheid Israel’ has been ‘associated with antisemitism’, as grounds for why it is antisemitic to characterise Israel as a ‘racist endeavour’.

The original 2004 AJC definition was widely opposed. When a European Commission website publicised the document for discussion, it became the target of dissent, especially by European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) in 2006. It was not adopted by any institution. Nevertheless pro-Israel lobby groups promoted it, while implying that the European Commission had adopted it. Given its aggressive promotion, the AJC document was denounced by Palestine solidarity activists throughout Europe. It was denounced by conference motions of the UK’s academic trade unions (AUT & NATFHE).  Later it was denounced again by their merger, the University and College Union (UCU), and likewise by many UCU branches.

In 2016 the AJC’s brief preamble was adopted by an inter-governmental body, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).  Its website then published the entire document with the Israel examples, falsely implying that the IHRA had adopted those too.   Hence critics often use inverted commas for the term IHRA “definition”.  

Since then, Western governments (alongside pro-Israel lobby groups) have aggressively deployed the IHRA definition for false allegations against pro-Palestine speech.  Universities have deployed it to persecute pro-Palestine speech (or activities) by staff and students.

Since 2017 the IHRA definition has been widely denounced from many quarters – by most Jewish pro-Palestine groups worldwide, the UK’s academic trade unions and Palestinian groups. As they warned, the Israel examples conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism were designed to make false allegations of antisemitism and to weaponise them against Palestine solidarity.

Of course, the IHRA’s pro-Israel advocates have ignored such Jewish opposition, privileging the pro-Israel stereotype of Jews, as in the Israel examples.

IHRA definition in the GPEW

Between 2018-2021 the GPEW had a sporadic debate over the IHRA definition. For nearly every semi-annual conference, there were motions for and against. They were debated in pre-conference online workshops but did not reach a plenary vote for three years.

This long delay provided an opportunity to alert members, who otherwise might see the IHRA as simply ‘against antisemitism’, above politics. Green Left supported the anti-IHRA motion, which eventually added the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). Its Israel examples contradict the IHRA’s, especially by distinguishing between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The formerly pro-IHRA motion ended up combining the IHRA and JDA into an Antisemitism Guidance document (perhaps doubting whether the IHRA definition alone would gain a majority vote).

Finally the 2021 GPEW conference plenary session adopted that motion. As a D category motion, the Guidance was meant for the internal disciplinary procedure (rather than policy). Regardless

of its use, the contradictory criteria provide unclear guidance. False allegations of antisemitism could be easily promoted through the IHRA’s examples, although they could be countered through the JDA’s. In a disciplinary case on alleged antisemitism, the accuser and accused (likewise committee members) could select whatever criteria justify their own views.

Many pro-Palestine activists remain suspicious about how the Guidance has been used (or still may be used) to promote false allegations of antisemitism against GPEW members. More subtly it can chill free speech; this effect is difficult to monitor or evidence because it’s self-censorship.

More fundamentally, such a racist document is inherently divisive among members.

For the autumn 2025 conference, therefore, Motion D26 would suspend the 2021 Antisemitism Guidance, pending a review and possible substitution. If the motion succeeds, there would be no problem. The disciplinary procedure could use the traditional well-known definition (‘hostility towards Jews as Jews’) for judging any alleged antisemitism.

Is more specific guidance necessary? Any such judgement should come from a single deliberative process including groups facing false allegations of antisemitism, jointly with Jews facing real antisemitic prejudice. The process should not privilege any one group. Let’s use every opportunity to discredit and undermine the IHRA definition.

Bio-note: Les Levidow is a member of Green Left and several anti-Zionist groups, including Jewish Network for Palestine (JNP) and Rank & File Trade Unionists for Divestment from Isael (RAFTUDI).

THE GREEN PARTY MUST TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE REFUGEE CRISIS   by Peter Allen

The Green Party knows that the Global Climate and Ecological Emergency and migration are inextricably linked. Our frontline politicians, including our new leader, have promised to tell the truth about both. Many millions of people will be forced to leave their homes in the years to come due to unbearable heat as well as floods, fire and drought. Much of the world will become uninhabitable before the end of the century. Gaia Vince, in her excellent book Nomad Century, is convinced that there will be billions of climate refugees arriving in Europe and other still habitable parts of the world by the end of the century, with many arriving before 2050.

Many of those arriving in Europe will seek asylum as refugees. Under current legislation a refugee will only be granted asylum if they can demonstrate that they are unable to live safely in any part of their own country because of fear of persecution there due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation”  (Claim Asylum in the UK: Eligibility- GOV.UK)

The above does not include climate change/disaster. It is Green Party policy to change this: “The Green Party will extend the applicable definition of a refugee to include those forced to leave their homes by reason of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order” (Convention of the Organisation of African Unity 1969), and affirms that global heating and environmental catastrophe are included under the term “events seriously disturbing public order “(Policies for a Sustainable Society  RA102) 

I don’t think the above policy was included in the 2024 General Election Manifesto and to my knowledge it was not advocated or refuted by anyone in the recent leadership debate. It is the kind of controversial issue that Green Left members and others should be prepared to raise for debate in the wider party, particularly in the current climate.

It is likely that there will be hundreds of millions of climate refugees arriving in Europe in the next few decades. The GPEW should be prepared to tell the truth about this and to advocate the co-ordinated international response that is required. It might not find such an approach as electorally unpopular as perhaps it fears. 

Gaia Vince Nomad Century: How to Survive the Climate Upheaval is published by Allen Lane SEE ALSO https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/14/nomad-century-how-to-survive-the-climate-upheaval-by-gaia-vince-review-a-world-without-borders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftEKVSZk7qU&t=7s

Policies for a Sustainable Society https://policyarchive.greenparty.org.uk/policy/refugees-and-asylum/

HOW TO SPOT A CREEPING FASCIST ‘PATRIOT’!

[OR:  How to understand a world in which so many are willing to vote for idiots, liars and criminals!]

In these increasingly troubling and ‘interesting’ times, in which – for the moment – UK politics seems to be drifting to the far right, people need to be able to distinguish between genuine patriots, and those who try to hide their far-right politics behind national flags. This was a problem only recently, with ‘Operation Raise the Colours’ – a stunt which claimed to be ‘patriotic’, but which was organised by fascist individuals and groups:

https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/08/22/operation-raise-the-colours-organised-by-well-known-far-right-extremists/

Some may find it useful to consider a short book written by the Italian novelist, Umberto Eco – who grew up in Fascist Italy. His book, ‘How to Spot a Fascist’– written in 1997 – identifies 14 different features that denote what he calls ‘Ur-Fascism’, or “eternal fascism. Significantly, whilst he said that many of those characteristics are often mutually exclusive and so can’t be grouped together in a coherent ‘system’, he also said: “all you need is one of them to be present” in order to identify a movement as fascist.

Today, of course, second-wave fascism (as distinct from the pre-WW2 forms of first-wave fascism) tends to take the form of what’s called ‘creeping fascism’ (or far-right authoritarian populism) – which, instead of dressing up in black shirts and jackboots, tends to prefer stomping around in expensive suits whilst sporting pints of beer, national flags and stupid grins!

Here are 11 of Umberto Eco’s main fascist characteristics – which also often apply to today’s creeping fascist parties: 

Cult of ‘Tradition’ – which is seen as incompatible with change, all forms of which it dislikes intensely.

    Rejection of modernism and reason – instead, creeping fascism, like fascism, appeals to the most base emotions (such as hate), using lies and ‘fake news’ to get people worked up to such an extent they can no longer do any rational or joined-up thinking.

3.    Irrationalism – instead of rational thought, creeping fascism tries to get people to just take ‘action for action’s sake’ based on ‘gut’ reactions and emotion.

4.    Anti-science and learning – scientific facts are rejected in favour of what they call ‘alternative facts’ (& what the rest of us know is just wrong information or even outright nonsense!), and it’s why they dismiss the knowledge of experts.

5. Fear of difference & diversity, and hatred of dissent – it seems creeping fascists/fascists become extremely frightened and angry if they ever come across anyone who isn’t just like them!

6.    Frustration at their current economic situation – while the frustration is often valid, creeping fascists/fascists prefer to take their frustration out on minorities that are even worse off them, instead of taking it out on the over-rich elite who’re actually causing their economic and social problems. 

7.   Enemies of the nation’ – creeping fascists/fascists always need ‘enemies’ in order to build up their hate-based ‘nationalism’; a ‘nationalism’/’patriotism’ which they often try to wrap up in national flags.

8.    Domination – creeping fascists/fascists, especially their leaders, typically have inferiority complexes; to make themselves feel better, they therefore look for minority groups/ ‘others’ that they can ‘boss’ or intimidate.

9.  Machismo and misogyny – the need to dominate amongst male creeping fascists/fascists is often closely connected to domestic and sexual abuse, with such males being at least TWICE as likely to commit such crimes as any other group of males.

1      Far-right populism vs. democracy – creeping fascist/fascist leaders often claim that ‘democracy’ is a bad thing, which is dominated by ‘woke liberal elites’, and which should be replaced by leaders who ‘know’ what the ‘people’ really want – even though such leaders nearly always come from … the very wealthiest elites!

11.  Newspeak’ – this is Umberto Eco’s version of what we now call ‘fake news’/ ‘alternative facts’; or, in everyday language, lies!

But don’t let the current evidence of a drift towards creeping fascism make you despair! Because there is now a realistic hope that ‘Change IS Coming’! Because the election of Zack Polanski as the new leader of the GPEW is an encouraging development on several fronts. Not only will the election of a green populist as leader allow the Green Party to move away from its current fixation with ‘soft Tory voters’, it may well also allow the party to move back to the radical campaigning organisation it was before 2017.

Zack Polanski’s election also opens up the real possibility of some kind of agreement between the Greens and ‘Your Party’. This is a real possibility, as both Zack Polanski and those involved at the centre of the ‘Your Party’ project have expressed a clear willingness to work together.

In terms of both the need for a strong opposition to the far right, and the equally urgent need for a determined push on ‘green’ agenda issues, a genuine Red-Green alliance of some kind will be crucial.  It’s no coincidence that a big part of Farage’s creeping fascist agenda involves opposition to ‘net zero’ and renewable energy, alongside calls for coal mines and fracking. With Labour still adopting anti-refugee positions, something like France’s ‘New Popular Front’ would be a real step forward – for both local and national elections.

Polls suggest that a genuine electoral alliance between the Greens and ‘Your Party’ could win a significant number of seats – thus undercutting those who are already arguing that the creation of ‘Your Party’ risks letting Farage’s Refuk into government.

In fact, France’s New Popular Front – and the anti-neoliberal action programme it put before the electorate – resulted in an impressive wave of enthusiastic support for eco-socialist policies, which also helped block a victory for Le Pen. 

Allan Todd is a member of Anti-Capitalist Resistance’s Council, and of Unite Against Fascism; and is an ecosocialist/ environmental and anti-fascist activist. He is the author of Revolutions 1789-1917 (CUP); Trotsky: The Passionate Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); Ecosocialism Not Extinction (Resistance Books); Che Guevara: The Romantic Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); and For the Earth to Live: The Case for Ecosocialism (Resistance Books)

“Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism” by Kohei Saito

Book Review by Ashok Ghosh

Anyone who wants to understand the cause of the climate emergency should read this book and then re-read the first three chapters of Capital in the light of it.

Saito won the Deutscher Memorial Prize for this brilliant work, which explodes the myth that Marx did not give primacy to ecology – in fact ecology is at the very heart of Marxism.

Saito exposes the fallacy of Marx’s supposed “Prometheanism” – “his historical materialism, it was said, uncritically praised the progress of technology and productive forces under capitalism and anticipated, based on this premise, that socialism would solve every negative aspect of modern industry simply because it would realise the full potential of productive forces…through the social appropriation of the means of production that were monopolised by the capitalized class.” That view misses the whole point of Capital, which describes the death knell of capitalism not only in quantitative but also in qualitative terms. Capitalism by its very nature is self-destructive. Only the barest thumbnail sketch of Saito’s thesis can be given here.

Saito thesis is based on Marx’s voluminous notebooks, published for the first time recently in the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe known as MEGA. Many more notebooks are due to be published shortly. One third of these were written by Marx in the last fifteen years of his life. They reveal his voracious study of natural sciences, agriculture, biology, chemistry, botany, geology and mineralogy. He studied pre-capitalist societies and learnt Russian in order to research village communities in Russia. Incidentally, he recognized the possibility of establishing socialism in Russia without going through full blown capitalism.

Had Marx lived to complete Capital, volume 3 would have differed in significant respects from the version prepared by Engels. Saito builds on the foundations laid by the Kuruma school, hitherto little known outside Japan and Germany. To appreciate Saito’s thesis four concepts in particular must be grasped – Reification, Metabolic Rift, Value and the formula Money-Commodity-Money (M-C-M).

“Value” is the common criterion through which products are made comparable and is embodied in money.

“Reification” turns on its head the purpose of human existence. Instead of things existing for human beings, human beings exist for the sake of commodities and do so solely in order to maximise Value.

The social relations between human beings are Reified into material relations between persons and social relations between things – as Marx famously said in Capital – “by equating their different products to each other in exchange as Values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labour. They do this without being aware of it.”  As Saito explains “to the producers, therefore, the social relations between their private labours…do not appear as direct social relations between persons in their work, but rather material relations between persons and social relations between things.” Capitalism turns human beings into nothing more than “bearers of commodities.”

“Metabolism” is used by Marx to refer to the relationship between human beings and nature.

Capitalism deforms the relationship between nature and human beings, causing a rift because it inexorably destroys nature in order to maximise Value. With its rapid development of technology, it threatens “the entire ecosystem with desertification, global warming, species extinction, destruction of ozone layers and nuclear disasters. The problem is not simply the inevitable consequence of quantitative increase in production but in the qualitative difference between the capitalist mode of production and all others that have preceded it.”

The essence of capitalism is that Value repeatedly goes through the process of M-C-M with the sole aim of quantitative increase – as it says in Capital – value is an “encompassing subject” of the process M-C-M, in which “it alternately assumes and loses the form of money and commodities, but preserves and expands itself through all these changes.” What matters in capitalist production is no longer the satisfaction of social needs but endless growth of Value for its own sake – in the words of Capital – the “blind and measureless drive, its insatiable appetite for surplus labour” – the sole aim of capital is to objectify labour into commodities as much as possible in the shortest possible time.

The purpose of technological development becomes more efficient exploitation of labour and natural resources at minimal cost.

The essential point to grasp, in Saito’s words, is that “the capitalist tendency to degrade nature is derived from the law of commodity exchange. Capital pays for value as the objectification of abstract labour and not for social and natural forces that do not enter into the valorisation process, though it appropriates the surplus products that they produce. Moreover, capital ignores costs that are necessary for the recovery of natural power after every use.”

The last two words of Saito’s book sums it up well – “Marx lives!”

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMdqzVJAwpU

 Could slowing down save the planet? This Japanese philosopher thinks so

Japanese philosopher Kohei Saito has become a face of the global movement for "degrowth." From his collectively-owned patch of forest outside Tokyo, he argues that humans need to stop consuming to save the planet.

HOW ABOUT SMASHING SCIENCE? Glyn Goodwin

I have been reading Carl Sagan’s ‘The Demon haunted world’ written last century. This paragraph stands out, showing remarkable insight:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

 Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

We can relate this to the wholescale firing of climate scientists and the re-writing of science reports for political purposes The idea is to emphasise doubt. Anyone who has ever come across the seminal work ‘The Merchants of Doubt’ by Oreskes and Conway will understand that misinformation from paid and willing scientists can be very powerful, but the science is still false. The idea is to create doubt, muddy the waters.

Of course, when the science is so strong that doubt has all but gone then the next step is to smash it up. Eliminating the instruments which can tell you with no doubt what is happening. Abolishing science in a ‘kill the messenger’ manner.

The idea of abolishing science not only is medieval, but it is positively dangerous, not just for Americans but for all of us. It is not the first time it has happened. The USA once tried. In 1897, the Indiana General Assembly considered a bill, known as the “Indiana Pi Bill”, that proposed to redefine the mathematical constant pi (π) as 3.2, according to the Indiana State Library. While the bill passed the House, it was ultimately shelved in the Senate due to the intervention of a passing Purdue professor who exposed the mathematical inaccuracies.

What Trump and his acolytes are doing is far worse, eliminating our ability to predict what may happen. Not only does it destroy at a stroke that ability, but they are rewriting science according to political dogma. This is the precursor to something else worse. If you look at the Atlas Network, you find that the plan is not confined to the USA and a few other countries but worldwide domination. They expound ‘freedom’; but it really is about maximising power for the elite because they can. 

What freedom is this? Perhaps the ‘freedom’; as described by economist James McGill Buchanan.  This is hyper libertarianism on steroids, neoliberalism plus. It is anything but freedom for the majority.

To find out why things are framed as one thing and mean the opposite we need to pop back 2500 year to the works of Sun Tzu, The Art of War, another seminal work, which generals carry round with them. In this we see the skilful strategist defeats the enemy without doing battle, he talks of deep penetration, deception and many other things; that we should recognise, divide and rule setting the enemy against itself. It teaches many lessons which the right have listened to and the left have ignored. We fight on uneven terrain, with the right occupying the high ground. Never attack uphill warns Sun Tzu.

So where is the Green Left on the journey to recognising this fundamental truth? We should be wary of science denial and pseudoscience, if you remove the basis for baselines then what do you have? Chaos. 

Carl Sagan is eloquent on this speaking from the last century but resonating as if he were in the room. We should recognise science as something which can be trusted above all other methods. By removing a basis of science, you remove the trust is brings. Not to say that science per se is right, it doesn’t work that way, but without that trust in the scientific method you quickly find yourself on the ground Reform seek to deform. 

March for Science, London, 2017Credit: Les Levidow

The post-modern dictat of ‘putting science in its box’; saying that it is ‘just an opinion’ should and must be resisted. As science is dismantled in the USA we can see where that leads, this is the land of the far right where you are tricked into fighting for fascism believing you are fighting for freedom. Whenever you are told ‘no debate’ alarm bells should ring loud and strong. That is the land of authoritarianism, if people say you just have to accept it, think North Korea, think the Stasi, think Trumpism and stand firm. This is an act to rid us of pesky democracy. Once cowed into silence it is another of the ten points to fascism ticked off as Stacy Adams so cogently vocalises.

We can look back to the 1970-80’s through the lens of ‘The Shock Doctrine’ where anyone not fitting a ruler’s whims can and will be snatched from the streets and dumped back beaten and bloodied or simply killed.

Then we look at what is happening in the USA again and we see Trump’s private army of masked men kidnapping people almost at random off the street in a populist reign of terror. To what end we might justifiably ask, while we still can. Some food for thought as to where the dash to end democracy is going. And who pays for it?

At the bottom of it all lies deception by words, ‘Freedom!’ shouted liberally at every opportunity, after all who doesn’t want ‘freedom’. When you get rid of the science base level as post modernism says as just an opinion, then anything goes. Beware of authoritarianism dressed up as progressive ideas.

 In the words of Son Tzu:

‘Measurement determines Estimation

Estimation determines Calculation

Calculation determines Comparison

Comparison determines Victory’

Now imagine why Trump wants to destroy measurement. We should be very wary of authoritarianism dressed up as progressive ideas, whether it is No debate or Freedom. Anyway, these are a few thoughts which occurred to me on news of the destruction of satellites measuring CO2, and books being read.

References

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250807-us-to-rewrite-its-past-national-climate-reports)

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/07/trumps-gold-standard-doubt-science/683590/

https://www.atlasnetwork.org

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/21/curtis-yarvin-trump

https://time.com/6092844/peter-thiel-power-biography-the-contrarian/

https://www.desmog.com/americans-prosperity-history-research-background-funding/

You can find a whole lot of info here: https://www.opensecrets.org/

CAMPAIGN AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

The COP30 UN climate negotiations in Brazil will be one of the most crucial climate summits in recent years. Ten years on from the Paris climate agreement, nations must resubmit their climate plans. Saturday 15th November is a Global Day of Action. Climate protests will be taking place around the world. In the UK, there will be events in major cities demanding climate justice. The UK trade union movement is also launching a Year of Climate Action this autumn. 

 

Manifesto for Eco-Socialist Revolution Fourth International Resistance Books, 2025 Mark Douglas, Green Left, Hackney. mdouglas@gn.apc.org  6th August 2025

 

It's good news when a new manifesto arrives, especially on Ecosocialism. But there are too many introductory paragraphs saying the same thing... ‘capitalism is bad’. Also, is this a real manifesto or a programme? I think it's a programme for the long term, maybe over a generation, i.e. over 25 years.

It is good that the Fourth International has adopted thoroughgoing Eco-Socialism. They say...'Time is pressing if we do not want to go beyond crucial tipping points': eg. deforestation, greenhouse gas rising emissions, desertification, ice sheet retraction, excessive nitrogen, air pollution, atmosphere heating, etc.’

Chapter 5 is the 'Eco-Socialist Alternative', a list of eco-socialist demands.

1. Public Prevention Plans for social needs,

2. Socialise productive wealth to provide essential services to all people under popular democratic control

3. Expand commons and public services against privatisation and marketisation water, housing, health, transport.

4. Equalise wealth to deal with climate injustice and ecological degradation, radical tax reform, eliminate tax havens, socialise bank funds.

5. Create racial solidarity, fight racism and oppression, eliminate police militarism, oppose all austerity policies.

6. Nobody is Illegal! Freedom of movement and residence on Earth.

7. Eliminate unnecessary and harmful economic activities, stopping the climate and bio-diversity catastrophe requires significant reduction in global energy consumption,

8. Food sovereignty! Get out of agribusiness, industrial fishing, and meat industry. Go vegetarian, radical agrarian reform, distribution of land to peasants and co-operatives, organic agriculture.

9. Co-existence with all life, stop the massacre of species, expand bio-diversity.

10. Urban reform, vast housing programmes to eliminate slum cities in the south, repopulate rural areas along with a sustainable economy.

11. Socialise the assets of energy multinationals, no compensation to fund the transition to a green economy, create decentralized clean energy networks under people’s control.

12. Socialise Big Tech and open the 'Black Box' data centres.

13. Peoples Liberation and self-determination...against war, imperialism and colonialism. Dismantle military alliances such as NATO along with military budgets, abolish all private armies, solidarity to specially oppressed people in Palestine, Ukraine (what about Tibet, Kurdistan, Uigur?).

14. Guarantee employment and training for all in the green transition, eco sustainable and socially useful activities. Work transfer from wasteful, harmful processes like agribusiness, big fishing, meat sector (+ Advertising, gambling, grouse shooting, corporate hospitality?) Green jobs guarantee.

15. Work less, live a good life. Reducing excessive energy consumption leads to lower work routines. Socialise many domestic work activities. Elimination of wasteful jobs leads to less work days. Work quality rises.

16. Reduce, Re-use and Recycling of waste mandatory for agri-waste, contaminated material, etc. Circulatory systems for all waste.

17. Women’s rights, body autonomy, eliminate misogyny, and all forms of oppression against women.

18. Reform of education system, release from domination by capital, spread indigenous knowledge. Research directed to ecological science.

19. Extend democratic rights, freedom of association, for strikes, free elections, abolish private media, dissolve private militias.

20. Cultural Revolution for respect of the living and 'love for Pachamama', abolish patriarchal ideology of domination.

21. Democratic Self-managed Ecosocialist Planning, concerning key economic resources, not about local shops. Devolved planning to combat climate chaos.

Next chapter 6 covers the debate on Degrowth, which basically means industrialized countries have to shrink and poor societies to grow, the 'Contraction and Convergence Scenario', first promoted in the 1990s.

Final chapter 7 is The Ecosocialist Rupture which argues for the convergence of mass popular movement to create unstoppable force for social change. The main problem is that the Labour aristocracy in the west has been bought out by capitalism.

'The construction of self-organised organs of popular power is at the heart of our strategy.

The Left must go Green and the Greens go Socialist.

We are the group for trade unionists, allies and all supporters of the labour movement in the Green Party of England & Wales. We believe that a powerful, organised labour movement bringing together millions of working people is essential to transforming society for people and planet. We work together to offer practical solidarity to workers in their struggles, empowering Green campaigners up and down the country to work closely with trade unions.

If you are a Green Party member who supports our objectives, go to https://gptu.greenparty.org.uk/join/ If you can't join but would like to hear about the latest news, events, and campaigns, go to https://actionnetwork.org/forms/sign-up-to-hear-more-from-us-2/

 

https://greenerjobsalliance.co.uk/news/

 The GJA was launched in 2010 to campaign around the issue of the jobs and skills needed to transition to a low carbon economy. Our work combines supporting local projects through to advocacy at regional, national, and international level. We are a loose coalition of trades unions, student organisations, environmental groups, and individual supporters. We believe that a focus on the workplace and the need for worker / union engagement means the GJA helps to fill a large gap in climate change work.

2025-6 The Year of Trade Union Climate Action

Tahir Latif: Greener Jobs Alliance

This autumn sees the commencement of the long-awaited Year of Trade Union Climate action.  Agreed at 2024 TUC in an unopposed vote and reiterated in Motion 75 passed at this year’s Congress, the year of action aims to bring the climate and biodiversity crisis – an existential threat to the planet, after all – to the top of the political agenda where it belongs.

The huge groundswell of support for serious climate action engendered by the 2019 Friday protests was dissipated by the pandemic.  Into the resulting vacuum we have seen the disastrous rise of the Far Right, the anti-migrant protests and unchecked racism, all of which dominate our media narrative.  The question is: in a world where the energies of the Left are understandably focused on countering that narrative, calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza (and the UK’s complicity in it) and organising a response to Starmer’s ‘anti-Labour’ government, what place is there for the climate movement that goes beyond regarding it as a sideshow?

It is of course absolutely correct that we demonstrate against the tide of racism and the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people.  Both are clear and immediate threats that demand a response.  But what do we do after we have protested, what is the alternative we are offering?  That is where we need to raise the flag (to use a currently popular designation) for climate action.

If we take it as given that the surge in support for Reform UK stems from a disaffection with ‘business as usual’ politics, then it is incumbent on us as a movement to provide an alternative that is equally radical and non-BAU, but one which offers actual solutions to our current social malaise not just something to shout at.  A serious climate programme, simply and clearly articulated, something newly elected Zack Polanski is more than capable of doing, will provide that positive alternative: creating thousands of good jobs, rejuvenating our local communities, uniting us around collaborative cross sectoral projects for the benefit of all, and making our lives liveable and affordable.  And by the by protecting us from climate catastrophe.

Just as importantly, we can conceive of climate action as the quintessential anti-war activity.  With the government’s aim of ramping up arms production, backed by the urgings of Trump to make it 5% of our GDP, a £77Bn black hole in the country’s finances beckons, with no useful product at the end of it.  Climate action, by contrast, builds rather than destroys, protects rather than threatens, and in its very DNA promotes equality and – because climate recognises no borders – peace.  This year’s TUC also saw the passing of UCU’s excellent ‘Welfare Not Warfare’ motion, calling for arms spending to be redirected towards public services and actual needs.

It is in this context that the Year of Trade Union Climate Action takes place.  Several unions are developing plans for activities, events and actions across the whole year to highlight different aspects of the climate crisis.  With COP30 taking place in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, we cannot just let the usual coterie of fossil fuel lobbyists have their way.  Here are some of the more immediate dates for your diaries in the build up to, and during, the COP, and which will kick off the year of action:

Saturday 20^th September – 'Make Them Pay' demo.  A mass protest calling to tax the super-rich, protect workers and make polluters pay.  More than 80 organisations - unions, grassroots groups, NGOs and beyond - are signed up in support and will be joining others around the world in a globally coordinated day of action leading to COP30.  Assembly on Portland Place from 12pm: look for meeting point J for the Climate Justice bloc and meeting point E for Workers and Trade Unions.  Coaches are being organised from Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Nottingham, Leicester, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield. 

Thursday 24^th September - A year of trade union climate action: mobilising for 14th and 15th November.  An online meeting aimed at all union and climate activists ahead of the protest days in November. 

Tuesday 21^st October - Why the climate crisis is an international working-class issue: building global solidarity.  Online meeting featuring speakers from every continent ahead of the global day of protest on 15^th November.

Sign up for both online meetings at the Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union Group website.

 On Friday 14th November, we want every union branch in every workplace to take action to demand action to tackle the climate crisis. Whether it’s lunchtime protests in the streets, handing out leaflets, linking up with community actions, or raising the issue in work (working temperatures, air quality etc.). We need to take up the spirit of the global climate strikes in 2019, and get every workplace active and creative to highlight the threat of the climate crisis to working people, our families and communities.

On Saturday 15th November, demands for action on climate will be taking place across the entire world. In the UK, there will be gatherings in major cities, showing solidarity with our fellow workers in the Global South and demanding climate justice for all. Watch this space for further details of the global protests.

 

 

FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS A DEMONSTRATION OF JUST TRANSITION

Pearl Ahrens – Fare Free London – 2025-09-09

It’s not hard to think of clever policies which support a just transition, but the one staring us in the face is free public transport.  Making public transport free would unequivocally support the worst-off in our society with their living costs, and encourage people onto public transport. It would help advance the socialist goals of the movement, and would help the Green Party win electorally, if they got behind this policy.

The Green Party manifesto for the London elections (Greater London Assembly and Mayoral) has for the last few years supported a flat ticketing structure, which would be a step in the right direction.  Fare Free London campaign, launched last year, and Fare Free Yorkshire launched this summer, are asking for one step further.  The implementation of free public transport would be a recognition that the non-polluter shouldn’t pay, and a useful gift to the millions of people struggling with the cost of living. It would actually be more accurate to say ‘extending’ rather than ‘implementing’ free public transport, as in London many demographic groups already get certain types of public transport for free, and nationally the over 66s already have free bus travel. With over 150 cities in the world already operating with free public transport, it’s less of a radical demand than it first seems.

It’s great to see the socialist political strand asserting itself within the party, with the election of Zack Polanksi and the influx of new members joining to support him and to push for socialism more broadly. This movement brings a vibrancy and hopefulness to the party-political landscape. For many years the climate movement has been suffering with the reputation of asking unrealistic privations of people – turning off your lights for Earth Day springs to mind. We on the left know that the climate movement shifted years ago towards a ‘just transition’ and moved away from a ‘politics of guilt’, but the reputation still sticks. Free public transport is emblematic of a new politics of plenty: a generous state which genuinely rewards people for doing the right thing for the climate. Perhaps it lays the groundwork for easier implementation of road user charging, or perhaps it stands on its own merit as a good solid policy easing the cost of living. Either way, it sets up a framework for a state that provides services in exchange for taxes, rather than cuts services and charges us for them. For the Green Party, supporting free public transport would help the electorate recognise the exciting change occurring within the party.

Some amongst you in the readership of Watermelon might be thinking, ‘surely it would be better to have more reliable and more frequent public transport, not just free public transport?’  Our answer is that all three are needed, plus improving accessibility on the network for disabled people. Free public transport is the same demand as ‘more investment’, but framed in a way that’s oriented towards the public, not towards policy wonks. With free public transport, what you see as a passenger is a real benefit to you, not a behind-the-scenes change in funding arrangements that doesn’t really affect your day-to-day. Of course, there would be a funding change: a funding set-up with less reliance on tickets would need to be topped up with more investment from taxation, but the overall pot of funding could be more fairly arranged if the burden were placed on the wealthy through taxation, rather than on the poorest in our society who need buses to travel around. And while free public transport alone doesn’t reduce car usage, it effectively equalises the two options: even a small ticket price seems like a barrier to a journey by public transport, and once you already have a car your journeys are free at the point of use.

When we speak to people about this idea, the response is very positive, which is rare when talking about transport policy. People often come up with concrete ways that free public transport would improve their lives. The hardest part in this campaign is persuading the politicians that it would be worth putting the effort in. Ideally we’d have legislative change to make free public transport possible everywhere. Currently, local authorities have the power to reduce fares (the West Midlands Combined Authority made buses free after 7pm last December), the problem is they don’t have revenue-raising powers to infill the loss. Instead of making councils take the hit, the national government could grant local authorities the powers to implement a payroll tax (how free public transport is funded in France), to exploit increased land values around bus and train interchanges (how they fund it in Hong Kong), or the national government could simply fund public transport long-term from a central pot, for instance by ending all road-building projects.

Having Green Party support (locally or nationally) would be a huge boost to the campaign, and it would demonstrate to the public that we think travelling in an environmental way shouldn’t feel like a punishment. 

 

A VIEW OF A HOSPITAL AS A DATA MINE The raw data arrives, Sometimes it walks, sometimes it hops, Or limps on crutches, Or is wheeled in on wheelchairs, Or is carried in ambulances, or on stretchers. Then more data is refined and extracted By different grades of worker. Some use thermometers Needles, pressure cuffs and X-rays. Some ask questions. Some make observations, Then the raw data is sorted, Sat in chairs, laid on beds, Sent to wards, or operating theatres. Now the workers Must sit down at screens And keyboards and terminals To extract and input the important stuff Sweeter than any honey Made by bees in a hive, More nutritious than any food carried Into a nest by ants. Data can be sent to centres, Processed at vast expense, Regardless of environmental cost, And translated into money, For somebody, Other than workers or patients.

GREEN LEFT ONLINE Green left facebook  https://www.facebook.com/groups/GreenLeft/ Green left blog http://greenleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/ Green Left on BlueSky @greenleft-ew.bsky.social

JOIN GREEN LEFT  Green Left donations are £7 per year, FREE for unwaged/low waged. pay by standing order  Please contact: Green Left Co .jmbaileyx@yahoo.com