The Greens aren't cuddly environmentalists. They are Corbynistas on steroids
I thought we had reached the pinnacle of the Greens' Marxist madness with last year's election of Mothin Ali as a councillor in Leeds, who celebrated his win for environmentalism with a shout of 'Allahu Akbar ' while standing in front of a Palestinian flag.
The keen gardener, whose TikTok video describing a local rabbi as 'a kind of animal' saw the Jewish university chaplain, his wife and children forced into hiding, labelled Israel 'white supremacists' following the October 7 attacks and claimed Gaza was ' the biggest concentration camp the world has ever seen '.
Eco-friendly stuff.
Then, last week, we were subjected to the similarly deranged rantings of Green MSP Maggie Chapman, who was filmed at a protest in Aberdeen condemning what she called 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court' following its ruling that transwomen are not women.
Yet many conservative-minded people appear to be making the mistake of voting for these unhinged socialists, with the Greens set to be braced for 'record-breaking' local election results on Thursday.
While it may feel like a worthy protest to punish '14 years of Tory failure', this dangerous trend risks re-electing the rabid Corbynistas Boris Johnson eviscerated in 2019.
Green candidates have already successfully defeated Conservatives to take over a variety of councils, including Wealden District Council (in coalition with Liberal Democrats) and Mid Suffolk District Council in 2023.
Further advances were made at the last general election, when seven of the 15 constituencies where the Greens got their highest vote share had voted Conservative in 2019. Two of the four constituencies won by the Greens in 2024, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire, were previously Tory. By positioning themselves at a local level as environment-friendly and anti-development, they have successfully parked their tanks on Kemi Badenoch's lawn.
The trouble for Conservatives is they don't seem to realise they are supporting a watermelon party that is green on the outside, red on the inside.
The Greens' comrades include Rachel Millward, the Extinction Rebellion-supporting co-leader of Wealden District Council, and the party's parliamentary candidate for Sussex Weald, who once declared that 'the colonial exploitation of the global south is the cause of climate change'. Not a popular opinion in the Tory shires. Greens holding anything remotely resembling a Right-wing view tend to fall out of favour pretty quickly – as former Scottish councillor John Ross Scott found when he was stripped of his membership after describing Hamas and Hezbollah as 'terrorist' organisations.
Darren Johnson, who twice stood as the Greens' candidate for mayor of London and spent 16 years representing the party as a London assembly member, was suspended after criticising the party's 'arrogant dismissal' of the Cass Review on gender identity services. Apparently, 'trusting the science' on climate change doesn't extend to foisting untested puberty blockers on vulnerable children. Alison Teal was dumped as the Greens' parliamentary candidate for Sheffield Central after she expressed concern about gender self-identification.
There is nothing new about such Greenstremism. What's new is that disaffected Tories appear to be falling for their 'we're-only-here-to-save-the-planet' schtick, particularly in rural areas. The Greens claim to be the party of the countryside but in fact are anything but.
Take their sluggish reaction to Rachel Reeves's 'tractor tax '. After 18 days, the party's response from its agriculture and rural welfare spokesperson (who does not even sit in Parliament) was a total fudge. 'It is right to clamp down on those who buy farmland to avoid tax and the Green Party strongly supports wealth taxes,' they declared. 'But we also need the Government to take action to ensure that hard-working farmers can earn a decent income.'
When the Conservatives forced a Commons vote on inheritance tax, two Green Party MPs abstained and two backed Labour by voting against condemning the changes.
Rural Green councillors have tried to give the false impression that the party opposes the new inheritance tax rules, with some even suggesting they should be 'reviewed' – but the party's 2024 manifesto actually proposes a not very farmer-friendly 'survey of all landholdings to pave the way for fair taxation of land'. That's a land tax, folks. Again, not particularly Home Counties.
They have Nimbyism in common with the Tories, but curiously, their anti-development stance even extends to green projects. They have actively campaigned against solar farms in Wales, Kent and Lincolnshire – while maintaining Ed Miliband levels of net zero zealotry.
There's protest voting and then there's political hara-kiri. Any Tory voting Green after reading the manifesto would have to be a bone fide masochist.
The party wants to remove business rate relief from enterprise zones and freeports, massively hike capital gains tax and align investment income with employment income for tax purposes.
It also wants to increase the windfall tax on oil and gas production as well as introduce a separate windfall tax on banks. Greens want a carbon tax at an initial rate of £120 per ton, rising to a maximum of £500 per ton of carbon emitted within 10 years. And if that's not enough to strike the fear of God into the average Tory, consider their employment policies, which make Angela Rayner look like Margaret Thatcher.
They want a Charter of Workers' Rights, 'with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions'. They want a maximum 10: 1 pay ratio for all private and public-sector organisations. They want to increase the minimum wage to £15 an hour, regardless of the worker's age. They want equal employment rights for all workers from their first day of employment and they want a four-day working week.
Their immigration policy is basically Tony Blair on steroids. They want all arrivals to the UK without a visa to be granted a visitor visa for a period of three months regardless of where they have come from or how they got here – including illegally crossing the Channel. Then they want to give them the right to vote 'in all elections and referendums'.
In East Sussex County Council, the Greens have put forward a motion to 'designate East Sussex as a County of Sanctuary for Migrants'.
Oh, and have I mentioned their desire to revalue council tax bands and increase inheritance tax?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
38 minutes ago
- ITV News
MPs raise concerns about Jersey's 'backdoor route into the UK'
MPs in the UK have raised concerns about Jersey 's French ID card scheme, saying it opens a "backdoor route into the UK" for potential illegal immigrants. The ID card scheme grants French visitors access to the island for the day without the need for a passport. It was introduced in both Bailiwicks in 2023, after it was found the number of day trippers had fallen post-Brexit - and last week, Jersey's government voted unanimously to extend the scheme on the basis of its success. However, UK MPs are now flagging it as a risk to their own border security. Chris Philp, the UK's Shadow Home Secretary and Conservative MP for Croydon South, says "our concern is that French ID cards are not particularly secure documents - it is possible to forge them relatively easily. "And because the Channel Islands are part of the Common Travel Area, the checks between the Channel Islands and the UK mainland are nothing like as strict as a regular passport control." Whilst no person has been identified to have exploited the scheme in this way in the past two years, Philp argues "concerns about border control are higher now than they ever have been." Citing rising number of immigrants who've made their way to the UK on small boats from Calais, he argues Jersey's scheme leaves a chink in the UK's armour that has the power to "snowball into something much larger" if left unaddressed. "When you have a vulnerability with your border security, what can start off as a very small problem can rapidly grow as illegal immigrants and others exploit vulnerabilities", he says. Philp hasn't raised concerns with members of Jersey's government directly. However, the island's Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Mary le Hegarat, admitted in the Assembly last week that "it is quite clear with correspondence from the Home Office that this is not a project they endorse." She added: "This heightens the risk for us in relation to the Common Travel Area and also potentially us being given a hard border." But Deputy Ian Gorst, Jersey's Minister for External Relations, says suitable checks and balances are in place to ensure the system isn't exploited as a pathway to the mainland. "These arrivals on their ID card have to have a return ticket for the ferry and there have been no incidences of onward travel to other places within the Common Travel Area. "So we can be confident that our border forces are protecting us and yet at the same time bringing this benefit to Jersey's economy." Guernsey is in the process of deciding whether to extend their version of the scheme for another year. A Guernsey Government spokesperson says: "It is the intention in Guernsey to extend the French Identity Card Scheme locally, on the condition it does not place our membership of the Common Travel Area at risk. "Guernsey Border Agency Officers have been in contact with the UK to discuss the matter from a Bailiwick of Guernsey perspective, and will continue to work with UK counterparts around the introduction of ETAs." Want the inside track on the issues that will shape Guernsey's Election this June? Listen to Guernsey Votes, an ITV Channel podcast packed with expert guests, local insight and analysis you can trust...
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.'
