I'm not a green party member but Zack Polanski is a brilliant communicator. Listening to him on the Newsagents (centristainment) he's got clearly thought out arguments.
Previous campaign vids from parties of all colours got swamped in slow-mo aerial shots of terraced houses and countryside. They became yawn inducing and forgot to focus on fixing people's lives.
His campaign vid hits the nail on the head where others probably won't dare to tread.
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1947911859388231759
(first one to bring up the breast enlargement story gets a red card for ignoring the actual 'big' issues.)
c'mon though, HypnoBoob is a great nickname
Watching that clip I felt strangely hypnotised, although nothing felt any bigger.
🤣 Had to happen
His campaign vid hits the nail on the head where others probably won't dare to tread.
Apart from hundreds of political commentators. Plenty of people have being saying it's the super rich not the small boats that are the issue.
His campaign vid hits the nail on the head where others probably won't dare to tread.
Apart from hundreds of political commentators. Plenty of people have being saying it's the super rich not the small boats that are the issue.
I doubt that is what rone means when he says that Zack Polanski hits the nail on the head. Try this comment by Polanski :
"Labour repeats as if it's gospel, this Idea that there's no money left"
Not many people are saying that.
Anyway Zack Polanski is a northern lefty gay vegan cyclist, and Jewish, the best possible antidote for the poison that is Reform UK. So just that should be sufficient reason to back him.
"Labour repeats as if it's gospel, this Idea that there's no money left"
Not many people are saying that.
I took it that he's saying the super-rich with their yachts have the money. And that there are more billionaires than ever. So clearly aiming at the rich. Hence "But the problem was the super-rich and their yachts".
If he's not saying that, and he means the government has the money but won't spend it, then he needs to be clearer rather than insinuating something.
Yes he is also saying that the super-rich with the yachts have the money as well as saying that Labour repeats the lie that there is no money left for vital provisions.
He is saying more than one thing. I thought he was being perfectly clear and not insinuating anything.
The "no money left" claim by Labour is something which rone is constantly challenging, whilst few others do, so I can see his point about Zack Polanski hitting the nail on the head.
Apart from hundreds of political commentators. Plenty of people have being saying it's the super rich not the small boats that are the issue.
For clarity specifically which politicians ?
That's what marks it out.
And actually to challenge your comment the push against super rich mostly a token nod in political circles.
Also, as per Ernie. Most political commentators and politicians go along with the idea of lack of money - and the fabricated technocracy of the OBR and BoE - that money in itself is a limitation. Rather than a deliberately enforced restriction.
Show me a campaign video that challenges Nigel Farage 'elites' thing with this candour and I will agree.
I disagree. The problem isn't the super rich, the problem is a weak and ineffective political class and the accompanying system that fails to implement real positive change.
I took it that he's saying the super-rich with their yachts have the money. And that there are more billionaires than ever. So clearly aiming at the rich. Hence "But the problem was the super-rich and their yachts".
Certainly the TechBros, or the ‘NerdReich’, as they’re now being labelled, aren’t helping at all, or at least globally, their little clique are trying to amass as much of the global economy as quickly as possible.
I guess their influence, at least on a low-key level, is affecting national economies.
I disagree. The problem isn't the super rich, the problem is a weak and ineffective political class and the accompanying system that fails to implement real positive change.
Huh?
The problem is that the weak ineffective political class won't take action to take away the money the super rich got by 'lobbying' politicians for tax cuts (for them) and deregulation.
It's a pattern that has been repeated in all societies. The few gather resources and use some of those resources to hoard even more resources, which gives them even more so that can gather even more. Continue until the system breaks.
Breaking the cycle can be done peacefully or it can be done violently. Violently sometimes works OK but more often than not it doesn't.
Weak ineffective politicians are a symptom of society's problems, not the cause. The cause is always those who are hoarding resources.
The issue is that the current Green party is effectively 2 somewhat incompatible parties in a trenchcoat.
There's the more urban-based social justice orientated Greens who are all about taxing the rich, affordable housing for all and who are largely exemplified by Mr Hypnoboob
Then there's a suburban rural Greens who are basically wealthy homeowners a who don't want any nasty new affordable developments full of ghastly poor people ruining their lovely view thank-you very much, weapons-grade NIMBYS basically.
Up until now the party's dual-leadership system has kept this internal conflict at a low simmer, if Polanksi gets it it'll explode.
Weak ineffective politicians are a symptom of society's problems, not the cause. The cause is always those who are hoarding resources.
Exactly, and the likes of labour used to be the counterbalance to the ownership of the right wing political party's by the wealthy. But they have sold out as well now, across the world, the dems in the US, the SDP in Germany, Macrons pretend centrists in France are all now owned by the wealthy and have enabled the march to right wing economy's that we suffer in, a march that is becoming a sprint.
What weak ineffective politicians ?
Sir Keir Starmer is hugely powerful. Even with all the MPs that he has suspended from his own party Starmer has a 156 working majority in the House of Commons.
Starmer certainly has the power to push through significant legislation even within the constraints of a bourgeois democracy. The fact that he chooses to put the interests of a wealthy elite before the interests of ordinary people is a reflection of his choices, not his lack of power.
Starmer isn't in Downing Street to change society, his is there to fulfil an important stage in a highly successful personal career.
I'm still not sure how weak ineffective politicians are the root of the problem.
We still have democracies that are more or less functioning so getting rid of weak ineffective politicians and replacing them with strong effective ones is easy.
Why, across the entire Western World, has it not happened?
Politicians will either do what the electorate force them to do or they will do what the wealth hoarders force them to do. If you want to live in a democracy then that is just a fact.
If, however, you are beginning to think a strong effective leader is what we need then perhaps democracy is not for you anymore. That's a scary thought if more and more people are starting to think that way.
Personally I'm happy with weak ineffective leaders. What we need is for the electorate to realise that the wealth hoarders have been calling the shots for far too long and it's time to force elected leaders to do something about it.
A good start would be to voting for parties that are happy to say the problem is the wealth hoarders.
The problem with Hypnotits is that his past activities with the power of suggestion are going to be a massive problem for the Greens being taken seriously. That he doesn’t see this is on itself a problem.
The problem with Hypnotits is that his past activities with the power of suggestion are going to be a massive problem for the Greens being taken seriously. That he doesn’t see this is on itself a problem.
The failings of recent governments at doing more or less anything remotely positive for its electorate ought to sit way above all of that.
The problem with Hypnotits is that his past activities with the power of suggestion are going to be a massive problem for the Greens being taken seriously. That he doesn’t see this is on itself a problem.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that. 'Past activities' sounds like there's lots in his past to be ashamed of. All I've been able to find is the Hypnotits article.
I guess if enough people want it to be a problem then it's a problem. But a lot of people have to want it to be a problem and the question then is why do they want it to be a problem?
Maybe there is more than I'm aware of, but taking part in a stupid newspaper article shouldn't mean you have to live under a rock for the rest of your life.
Or actually, if it meant Boris Johnson never got to enter politics then maybe it would be worth it...
That he doesn’t see this is on itself a problem.
I don't see as much of a problem either. I have to confess that I haven't looked into the alleged incident in a great of detail because frankly it doesn't really interest me a great deal.
But I believe that despite the presumably deliberate misconceptions Polanski did not try to make a woman's breast "grow" through hypnosis. The woman is question was actually a Sun newspaper reporter and obviously after a story to sell to readers.
Polanski was working as a hypnotist at the time a perfectly legitimate practice which helps a lot of people with issues such as phobias, stress, lack of confidence, etc.
I believe that a lot of women have lack of confidence issues concerning the size of their breasts, hence mega dollar breast enlargement industry. My understanding is that this particular Sun reporter went to Polanski asking if he could boost her confidence with regards to the size of her breasts, and he provided a session in which she was encouraged to image her breasts being larger than she perceived them to be.
It's not a particularly interesting story but the variation doing the rounds is slightly more titillating shall we say.
Maybe there is more than I'm aware of, but taking part in a stupid newspaper article shouldn't mean you have to live under a rock for the rest of your life.
I think the problem is that charging women £145 an hour to make them "think their boobs bigger" is obvious scammer behaviour. It's like Grant Shapps and his fake names, or Michelle Mone and her dodgy PPE. But evidently there's a science-averse section of the Green Party that weren't put off by the hypnobollocks.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
I think the problem is that charging women a reporter £145 £0 an hour to make them "think their boobs bigger" is obvious scammer behaviour.
I could be wrong but I don't believe this was a service he offered. He did it because he was asked to by a reporter. He didn't charge anything for it.
Have you heard you can get Nigel Farage to say "Up the 'RA" if you give him £50?
Obvious whataboutery but it's more to show the Left always seems to be much more keen to tear down it's own over past transgressions than the Right is. And we wonder why the World is ****ed.
I could be wrong but I don't believe this was a service he offered.
Did you read the article?
"Essentially, I am looking to utilise the unconscious process to make changes to the body. We don’t exactly know what is changing because of the complexities of the unconscious. We do know that whatever is changing is ecological, so if it’s changing one thing – such as the size of a person’s breasts – it’s making sure that the whole system is changing in order to support it.”
The guy's a huckster. "Complexities of the unconscious" being a failure to explain physical changes to boob size is exactly the kind of anti-science woo that appeals to esoteric Greens. Why even bother jumping through so many hoops to try to find a scenario where it's not total bobbins?
Did you read the article?
The Sun article? Nope. Not giving those shites the clicks.
I know I should. When have The Sun ever lied, after all?
Did you read literally anything anything else about the article in question or have you decided The Sun's word is gospel?
Ah, so he was using the theory of motor imagery with the goal of creating physical changes to the body. Fairy nuff.
I am not sure how that can be totally dismissed as "anti-science" though, it is a fairly established fact that visualisation exercises can increase physical strength and muscle mass.
Nor am I sure why that is particularly relevant to his bid to be Green Party leader for the next two years.
is exactly the kind of anti-science woo that appeals to esoteric Greens.
So you have a generally low opinion of Green Party members and their supporters? I guess that would help to explain your apparent hostility towards Polanski over a fairly mundane and irrelevant matter.
I have read absolutely nothing on this thread that makes me think this guy is a good choice. 🙁 In fact if he'd been one of the joint leaders I'd have been tempted to vote Lib Dem rather than Green in the GE. It started with the link to X so as I didn't do X I had to start reading articles instead. Then there's wanting to be a populist ecologist which lets face it is and oxymoron. I'd like a little less populism in his declarations and a little more substance. He seems to think his religion is important, that turns me cold, just as it did with the Blair couple. I'm not interested what he does in private behind closed doors either. I'd just like some well considered concrete policy declaration preferably with costings and the necessary legal framework outlined - I'd like a plausible manifesto. in his declaration rather than a lot of implausible sound bites. He's living in an alternative reality.
Main point being here that all the people that are sick to death of all the bad politics, and bad outcomes, and want change - never seem to want to embrace it.
Walking the Centrist line and/or right-leaning ideals keeps delivering increasingly terrible results. It's a mug's game.
One day the feedback loop will probably close and there won't be options.
We want proper change whether this comes from ZP, Greens or whatever. Something that pushes back. James O'Brien isn't gonna deliver it.
Otherwise keep enjoying the trajectory and complaining about it.
That explains a lot.
Well, if you think the sun is a trusted source, it certainly explains your right wing political views.
People are also sick of being governed by con men. For once I'd like to vote for someone who has some grasp of the science and economics. Absolutely nothing I've read about this guy says he has a rational, logical, pragmatic approach to issues facing the planet he lives on. He might make an Arts and Culture minister after some maths lessons but Green party joint leader. Pitié !
I have now read a few more articles and would like to have seen:
Opposition to bee killing pesticides, ICE cars, gas central heating, road network expansion, flying everywhere, fast fashion, delocalisation, imported tat.
Support for: wind farms, solar, a transition to an electricity driven economy, a bonus (EV) malus (ICE) system for cars, cycle networks, replacement of car lanes with bike lanes, rail infrastructure, proper airport taxes and aviation fuel taxes, obligatory solar on new builds, rent cap dependant on energy performance/m2, enforced environment normes, a fast fashion tax and import tax based on distance travelled by goods... .
Instead of all that he seems more concerned that I know he changed his name back to a Jewish one and supports a particular type of Green, Jewish Green. Jeez it's depressing.
People are also sick of being governed by con men. For once I'd like to vote for someone who has some grasp of the science and economics. Absolutely nothing I've read about this guy says he has a rational, logical, pragmatic approach to issues facing the planet he lives on. He might make an Arts and Culture minister after some maths lessons but Green party joint leader. Pitié !
I have now read a few more articles and would like to have seen:
Opposition to bee killing pesticides, ICE cars, gas central heating, road network expansion, flying everywhere, fast fashion, delocalisation, imported tat.
Support for: wind farms, solar, a transition to an electricity driven economy, a bonus (EV) malus (ICE) system for cars, cycle networks, replacement of car lanes with bike lanes, rail infrastructure, proper airport taxes and aviation fuel taxes, obligatory solar on new builds, rent cap dependant on energy performance/m2, enforced environment normes, a fast fashion tax and import tax based on distance travelled by goods... .
Instead of all that he seems more concerned that I know he changed his name back to a Jewish one and supports a particular type of Green, Jewish Green. Jeez it's depressing, another navel gazing narcist.
That explains a lot.
Well, if you think the sun is a trusted source, it certainly explains your right wing political views.
1) have you read the article?
2) which bits do you think are untrue?
3) which bits does Polanski say are untrue?
Instead of all that he seems more concerned that I know he changed his name back to a Jewish one and supports a particular type of Green, Jewish Green.
I think you're being unfair to him on this point. Jewish Greens is a network within the Green movement for Jewish people. It's not an ideological grouping of its own. It's no different to other affinity groups like Christians on the Left, Black Tories, whatever...
...I have a feeling I know what's coming next.
Go on make some predictions:
"Christians on the left" I'm equally uncomfortable with but "Black Tories" grates less even if it would break some laws here if exclusive. when people in politics make religion a big part of what they are it makes me reluctant to vote for them whatever the religion. The enlightenment, humanist values and the secular state are important to me.
I am surprised at level of criticism directed at Polanski on this thread. It appears to be based on the belief that being leader of the Green Party is the equivalent of being leader of the Labour Party, or the Tories, or Reform UK, etc.
It isn't, personal opinions are not particularly important in the case of Green Party leaders because they don't get to decide policy.
The Green Party is not some sort of personal fiefdom where the leader can decide party policy in the morning whilst they are brushing their teeth, as is the case for example in the Labour Party. It is a democratic organisation in which the membership are involved.
Furthermore if Polanski wins his bid to become leader of the Green Party it will only be for two years.
If we are going to look at things to criticise Polanski over top of my list would be to ask him what attracted him to be a member of the LibDems at a time when they were so strongly associated with propping up a Tory government and supporting austerity.
But none of that is particularly relevant. The role of Green Party leader includes being the public face of the party and an active member of my local pro-Palestine movement who is also an active Green Party member (she's also Muslim, as quite a few are) says that she has reservations about Polanski but that her interactions with him have been positive and she is generally impressed by him. These are her exact words from a post of hers :
I have had my own concerns about Zack. Green Party leadership lasts 2 years only. Right now he is the only person who is able to communicate effectively that cuts through.
What i have seen of him so far is a politician who is able to grow and learn. He has come a long way and all personal interactions I have had with him have been very postive and his support had allowed the Green party to have such a proPalestinian stance. We will see if the next 2 years is any good but there will be more opportunities for leadership challenges if he doesn't meet up to expectations.
Sounds reasonable
On the basis of that quote the member of your propalestine movement could be talking about Macron rather than the future leader of a party I voted for in the hope they'd promote the human race not making itself extinct through climate inaction. Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment and agree with Polanskis recent statements on Palestine I'd like a Green politician to be talking about things Green.
Spot the Green politics in the following mass of right-on trendy twadle eco-populism:
I'd like a Green politician to be talking about things Green.
And since Green issues aren't the only ones that matter you will be relieved to hear that a new left-wing party is being formed to deal with these issues. Green politicians can then go back to talking about things Green.
It is very early days still but is highly likely that I will switch my support away from the Green Party to the new left-wing social democratic party.
It's like Grant Shapps
That echos my thoughts as well. A smooth con man. Not exactly Caroline Lucas material.
He's living in an alternative reality.
Given the fact that he's correctly identified the main problem in society (that the rich are stealing everyone's money) and is willing to articulate it I would say he is living in actual reality.
The ones who are living in an alternative reality are the politicians who are constantly repeating the word, 'Growth!' over and over with the fervour of a true cultist whilst also either outright saying or implying if we would be fine if we could just stop immigrants.
For me to even begin listening to a politician they have to be able to identify and articulate what the actual problem in society is at the moment. It's a low bar to clear but one that almost no current politician seems to be able to manage.
That echos my thoughts as well. A smooth con man. Not exactly Caroline Lucas material.
It's interesting how people you wouldn't normally expect are prepared to accept The Sun's word as gospel so long as they are bashing the 'wrong' type of lefty.
Given the fact that he's correctly identified the main problem in society (that the rich are stealing everyone's money)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with being Green. The main problem in society IMO is that if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions we'll make the planet a really unpleasant place for humans to live on. And the changes in climate, sea levels, agriculture, and atmospheric composition will put an end to the notion of society as we see it, it'll just be an individual fight for survival.
That's Green thinking. I don't want another left wing party, being Green isn't a far left monoply. I want a Green party that is focused on Green policies rather than left or right. When I look around me those reducing their carbon footprints tend to be leftward leaning but not exclusively so, and very few are far left. The French gilets jaunes were anti-wind power, anti-EV and voted far right or far left - the ecologists who are actually doing something tend to come from the well-educated centrist middle classes.
Check out the members of this forum with insulated homes, EVs, heat pumps, holidays without flying, low meat diets... they haven't got a communist gene in their bodies.
Sure the super rich need tackling at an international level but there's very little the UK electorate alone can do about it when the wealth is already concentrated where most fiscally advantageous.
The main problem in society IMO is that if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions we'll make the planet a really unpleasant place for humans to live on. And the changes in climate, sea levels, agriculture, and atmospheric composition will put an end to the notion of society as we see it, it'll just be an individual fight for survival.
Yes, and no one is going to give a shit about any of that (or anything supposedly 'woke') as long as they feel like every year they are worse off than the one before.
Everything you describe I am also worried about. The reason I have the luxury of worrying about that is because I'm relatively comfortable (for now).
I think tackling poverty is a Green issue, in that as long as you have the majority of the population fighting over the scraps left by the rich then there will never be any pressure to tackle the longer term problems which is what is needed.
Nice middle class changes to consumption isn't going to cut it. A Green party that chooses to focus on getting people to buy electric cars and other marginal issues deserves obscurity.
Nice one Zack.
You've got a struggle but at least you can communicate and you're looking at the problems that Labour don't give a **** about.
https://bsky.app/profile/greenparty.org.uk/post/3lxtv375srs2k
Massive share of the vote.
Nice one Zack.
You've got a struggle but at least you can communicate and you're looking at the problems that Labour don't give a **** about.
https://bsky.app/profile/greenparty.org.uk/post/3lxtv375srs2k
Massive share of the vote.
~We shall see how it works out but I suspect its not going to go well. He seems a very divisive figure tho its a clear win. For me his personality would put me right off
