Yep - we'll see how many have noticed improved treatment vs how many (often from more disadvantaged groups) have been "managed" off waiting lists without treatment.
A collection of random hyperfoci held together by anxiety & sticky tape. Osteopath, climber, maths PhD, pianist, former professional MMA fighter. Dabbled in politics (Green). Passionate about health, health inequality, mental health, neurodivergence.
1,421 followers 2,074 following 651 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Yep - we'll see how many have noticed improved treatment vs how many (often from more disadvantaged groups) have been "managed" off waiting lists without treatment.
I'm so sorry. 🫂
How awful for her - sorry to hear that you've had to go through this. (Not "liking" the post, obvs, just expressing sympathy)
Out of interest, whereabouts are you? (If you don't mind saying!)
My own view (and I talk to a lot of people in detail about healthcare experiences in my job - though admittedly not a representative sample) is that there is massive regional variation, and huge differences in access for different groups even within the same region.
If only there was some actual research into this... www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/pub....
I think fairer to say that people's expressed opinion on the NHS is much worse than *your* personal experiences. Lots of people having some truly dreadful experiences right now. Some groups and geographical areas much more than others.
Democrat @raskin.house.gov excoriates Nigel Farage for banning journalists from Reform UK events: "I'm asking you a direct question. Why do you ban journalists who oppose your views from coming to your events? Why did you tell local government not to do interviews with your local newspaper?"
Excellent thread.
Huge congratulations - amazing campaign and an incredible result. Hope you've got some well deserved time to recover! 💚
Elsewhere I might be tempted to read something into that, but not in that room!
I always thought "highly qualified but entirely unemployable" was my own special niche.
Ouch.
I think that's more a function of where the party has chosen to target than any inherent Green voting tendencies of the local electorate. If the political landscape changes, so will the target seats.
😂
I get that it’s comforting to imagine it’s just Kemi Badenoch but very clearly, a good half of the media/political class have dry-roasted their own brains in a digital oven.
Ten years ago! Jim is talking about Tories it’s okay for him to criticise, but it’s what made both the centrists and the right flame-grill their brains, because the problem here has been elite radicalisation and an incredible amount of it online, due to being told to fuck off on Twitter dot com
I prosecute and defend the most serious sexual offences in our courts. The overwhelming majority of offenders are British-born. Overwhelmingly the victim is someone known to them, either a partner or relative. Anybody purporting to care about protecting women might start there.
The last decade has been such a scramble to find ways of telling people that it's possible to have change without anything changing.
generally speaking if you’re furious that women are able to find relationships through dating apps whilst men aren’t, you are surely either a) on a lesbian dating app by accident or b) very confused about the mechanics of how pairing off actually works in the end
I see this every time I work with community groups. Women stepping in to fill gaps left by LAs and government, only to find the more they step in, the more gaps appear, as government sees this free labour as a solution that their funding crises. It is not. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
I think we're going around in circles here, and I don't think I'm going to make myself any clearer than I already have. Nobody is arguing that the belief is "inherently abusive". We have already agreed that context is important, and careful procedure is important. Enjoy your weekend.
I appreciate that's not a belief that has any legal protection - but a literal reading of that bit of the code of conduct would suggest that we'd treat it the same way.
As for whether we should or not - I'm inclined to agree that it's behaviour that matters rather than beliefs per se, but I wonder how far we'd be comfortable extending that to, say, someone who was open about racist or eugenicist beliefs (but wasn't directly abusive to individuals).
While it's an interesting theoretical question (my hunch is that churches and political parties probably could make a legal argument for excluding people based on beliefs), I agree that would be legally riskier.
And taking action against this kind of abusive individual will always carry a legal risk - which is where it's vital that the party gets more robust processes in place. In short, we need to be alert to bad faith actors and get better at dealing with them. That's not unique to this particular issue.
Which is, of course, where things get sticky because abusers are often very good at finding ways around whatever explicit rules are in place and claiming to be the victim when called out.
Again, it's very context dependent. If someone were expressing that belief loudly towards a trans woman just trying to use the bathroom, then yes - that's harassment.
If those caveats were added whenever someone comments that "GC views are legally protected" then I'd feel more comfortable. Lots of other beliefs have the same status & some may be incompatible with being a GPEW representative. Members get more latitude, but it's not an excuse to be an asshole.
I'm glad we appear to be largely on the same page. To summarise, GPEW can (1) select or deselect representatives based on their expressed beliefs, including their support for party policy on trans rights & (2) exclude members for transphobic harassment, including deliberate, repeated misgendering.
And equally, continually referring to a trans woman as a man.
I said that I don't think people are being expelled for the *respectful* expression of beliefs - but I acknowledge that we may have different views as to what respect looks like. Which is why the CoC should be as explicit as possible about this.
The expression of beliefs absolutely *can* constitute abuse or harassment, depending on how they are expressed and the context.
Additionally, discrimination is not always unlawful if it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It depends on how the beliefs are expressed. Being Christian is a set of protected beliefs, but if someone keeps lecturing their co-workers about being sinners who are going to hell, that's still harassment.
Again, this is not what has happened, and it's not why the Green Party has had legal difficulties. Nobody, to my knowledge, is being expelled for the respectful expression of beliefs, protected or otherwise.
In much the same way that a member wouldn't (I assume) be expelled for holding the belief that burning fossil fuels is god's will. We'd just think they were a bit odd and wonder what they're doing here. If their presence became disruptive, then that disruption would be dealt with appropriately.
I don't hear anyone suggesting that people should be expelled simply for holding gender critical beliefs. That's a strawman.
Fair. My point was a "yes, but also..." rather than a negation!
However, excluding people who are bullying or harassing other members *is* possible as long as it's done in accordance with correct procedures.
I agree that the way the party treats ordinary members will differ from the way it treats representatives, and the decision to exclude someone from the party needs to be taken carefully and in line with party rules.
I have read the whole thing. Disciplinary action can take many forms - including removing somebody from a position (or a parliamentary party removing the whip from an MP).
bsky.app/profile/rosi...
Also - just reviewing the video now - 8 candidates for Deputy Leader is way too many for hustings to work. Can we replace them next time with some kind of Green Party hunger games? 😅
For the non-media roles on the executive, I agree that it's unfair to judge performance on camera, but for the leader and deputy I'm always going to be thinking "how is this person going to cope with a potentially hostile interview and a media that quotes selectively"?
I haven't watched it in full, so will reserve judgement overall, but I think there's a difference between watching to try to find out the candidates' positions (fair enough, people don't always express themselves perfectly) & watching to assess ability to articulate those positions under pressure.
Perhaps "some things were said in haste", but now consider what consequences things said in haste can have for the party when it's in a national media appearance.
To be fair, though, an important job of a Deputy Leader is to be able to accurately convey a position in a short answer not (obviously) open to misinterpretation. I think this is a reasonable test to judge candidates on!
I think it can be convenient, however, for people who do well from the current system for the people who do badly from that system to have a scapegoat to direct their anger towards and to blame for their difficulties. Anti-immigrant rhetoric provides just such a scapegoat.
I think the talk about protected beliefs is a red herring, and seems to be used by some (not yourself) to intentionally create a chilling effect around the party's willingness to take action against transphobic harassment. Which is why it makes me uncomfortable to hear it from GPEX candidates.
The party has had a string of legal problems that (as far as I'm aware) ALL stem from failure to follow our own procedures correctly. That's the crux of the issue here.
I'm not advocating thought police, but I don't think there is anything preventing the party from taking a strong position against transphobic harassment in all its forms, providing it is set up carefully and policed correctly.
Let's be clear - GPEW's entire liability in that case was due to the actions of one particular member of the executive who refused to follow the correct procedure.
Because I always think the best of my fellow Green Party members (of course), I can only assume that this misrepresentation is due to ignorance rather than being intentional.
I read the judgement pretty carefully - which a lot of people seem not to have done - and it was quite clear on this point. I do have questions about the quality of some of the party's legal advice, and especially about the way this judgement has been widely misrepresented.
To suggest that the Green Party must be inclusive to those holding gender critical views is a misunderstanding.
I don't think anyone disputed that. However it seems clear that parties can decide that the expression of certain political beliefs is grounds for disciplinary action (provided it is done in accordance with party rules), even if those beliefs are "protected".
A nice way of summing up the difference between UK and US governance. Our labour statistics are borked through incompetence, and theirs are about to be through deliberate manipulation.
I realise very few people will see this but if you do voting will open at midday so please share this guidance where candidates for the Green Party internal elections say what they think in their own words. docs.google.com/document/d/1...
It's nice that the @lgbtiqagreens.bsky.social produced this handy guide to dogwhistles and how to avoid them. I'd hope anyone running for office in the GPEW would have read this. But that would suggest two leadership candidates are using them deliberately. lgbtiqa.greenparty.org.uk/2023/06/15/d...
The level of overt racism being experienced by friends and family especially outside of London is crazy. The UK is changing rapidly. Monkey noises, being kicked out of Airbnb's, racial slurs and a general hostility. People of colour have always had these experiences but it is ramping up.
Whenever these LLM guys say they think AGI/artificial superintelligence is in the works it's like hearing someone say that their next toaster is going to break the land speed record
I believe you can just sign up again here - at least, that's what I did! join.greenparty.org.uk
I think I'd probably find the whole notion of banning kids from social media easier to swallow if adults accepted that it is also obviously driving them mad.
The human to human element is always the most difficult and unpredictable part, which is often neglected.
I have a lot of thoughts about this, which I don't have time to write in full here - but I think a lot of these tests are problematic in the way they're conducted and don't fully capture the challenges of patient interaction.
Sure. And I think that's an example of where it performs well.
"There will always be bad examples of every technology" - agreed, but in very few other cases have those bad examples been quite so enthusiastically and uncritically embraced!
It seems to be better where there is a clearly defined scope (eg, flagging possible tumours on a scan), but tools that try to diagnose undifferentiated patients from questions about symptoms are (AFAIK) still massively problematic.
I think the criticism in the OP was about AI being used as a panacea for every ill without considering the problems it causes, rather than a blanket rejection of AI as a whole. At the moment I think that there is too little scrutiny and too many problematic AI tools being used uncritically.
There are no doubt good use cases for AI - but some of the applications currently being marketed are really concerning.
I have experience of using an AI note taking app that markets itself as being compliant with NHS regulations and is in use by NHS doctors. It can be *shockingly* bad & relies on the health professional seeing 40+ patients a day to spot the hallucinations before pasting them into the patient record.
Spot on from Andrew Marr on the vacuity of the Government's unquestioning embrace of AI and big tech, at the same time as that technology is accelerating the far right radicalisation and economic division of our society
BUT WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!
This is a horrific story: a disabled man has stopped taking his medication in order to end his life because he can’t access NHS or social care. And yet having spoken to so many disabled people left in the most dire conditions, I can’t imagine he’s the only one. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
If you're stuck after voting opens on the 1st, just drop me a message! You've got a month to do it, so no rush!
My point here is that MPs will tend to be swayed by the particular perspectives and concerns of their constituents; and I'm not sure that these are necessarily representative of Green Party voters as a whole.
Absolutely, I think "broad appeal" too often comes across as "bland and non-confrontational" - which is rarely inspiring whatever your politics.
People already have stereotypes about Greens being middle-class NIMBYs. Can the party afford to be held hostage by voters in Herefordshire North and Waveney Valley? @zackpolanski.bsky.social #BackZack
If you look at Ramsey and Chowns' constituencies, you can see why they have concerns that Zack's leadership would put off "more moderate voters" & talk about the Greens having a "broad appeal". This is also a good reason why they shouldn't be the leaders. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
If the party is to grow significantly from where it's at now, it has to change and be more than a bunch of middle classers diligently recycling. I think Zack is the guy that can best have a stab at that. The anti-pylon guy isn't.
I know I'm no longer particularly relevant in the Green Party, but maybe one or two of you might be interested in who I plan to vote for in the internal elections? Here's my thinking ahead of the voting opening on Friday...
Really struggle with the idea that recognising Palestine is being treated like a way to try and moderate Israel's conduct - the diplomatic equivalent of a threat to send a naughty child to bed early if they don't behave properly - rather than the inalienable right of an entire nation of people.
Govt dropped cuts to PIP, but today's Committee report highlights MPs' concerns that many disabled people will be pushed into poverty by remaining cuts to Universal Credit's health element. In evidence to the inquiry I warned of the hardship this will cause. 1/5 www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
There are a number of other good candidates for Deputy - on reflection I'm not making further endorsements for that position here, but as always will be looking carefully at the statements and interviews put out.
I wrote this up - how “hard working local MPs” are facilitating a genocide: open.substack.com/pub/abolishw...
I wonder whether another thing to consider could be the impact it might have on the Labour activist base (would guess that more than 9% of activists might defect).
This article absolutely hits the nail on the head about why Greens - and the wider left - should #BackZack. The strategy that got the Greens to where they are is not enough, on its own, to take the next step up in scale. bright-green.org/2025/07/24/i...
📢TOMORROW NIGHT, 6.45pm We're live tomorrow with Richard Hames (@novaramedia.com) talking to candidates for the deputy leadership of the Green Party as they make their case for your support. Want to vote? Join the Greens by 31st July! youtube.com/live/o_l2i7r...
Yes, I can agree with that. I think the danger here is when "inclusivity" is used as a reason to frame discrimination as mere "disagreement" that should be resolved amicably. That's a problem the Green Party has had, and is the subtext to this conversation. In that context, Zack is 100% correct.
Thanks for being clear @rachelmillward.bsky.social
We know facial recognition is massively biased. You can't tell the age of child asylum seekers just by looking at them, even with AI. Age assessments are complex and personal. This is 100% guaranteed to see even more children put at risk directly by Home Office. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
You don't - for example - put a violent racist in a room with people of colour without their explicit individual agreement that they know what's going on and want to participate.
It's about context, though, isn't it. I'm all for seeing people as *potential* allies - but there are ways of going about that without making the people they're prejudiced against feel unsafe or unwelcome in your organisation.
Being "inclusive" of bigots IS a privileged position, though. It makes the space less safe for those they are prejudiced against. If you're not one of those people, being inclusive & trying to win them over may sound like a nice idea. It's different when you're on the receiving end of the bigotry.
bsky.app/profile/rosi...
Carla remains one of my favourite Greens - this clarity from her is what is needed. Stop calling things "intolerable" while still tolerating them.
Increasingly convinced the cheapest way to address this is to reverse local government austerity. Returning English local authority budgets to 2010 levels would cost about £7bn. Factor in population and demographic change and you'd want maybe £15bn. Benefits could be seen quickly and felt widely.
Maybe the state pension age should be tied to healthy life expectancy (<62 in the UK)? Because: a) helpful if most people can work until state pension age b) would give HMT a massive incentive to invest in public health and prevention on.ft.com/46mPnAa
Perhaps it could even be tied to each person's healthy life expectancy based on socioeconomic factors and where they grew up...