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?
Righties voting for these pinkos must be colourblind.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
University of Michigan drops private security after reports of surveillance
ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — The University of Michigan said it's cutting ties with a private security company that was accused of following pro-Palestinian activists on and off campus. The university said it found the actions of one security company employee "disturbing, unacceptable and unethical." It did not elaborate. 'Going forward, we are terminating all contracts with external vendors to provide plainclothes security on campus,' President Domenico Grasso said in a statement Sunday. In a Guardian story last week, students said they were surveilled around Ann Arbor. The news outlet posted video from a member of a Muslim group who decided to confront a man who was watching him from a car last summer. That man in turn yelled and accused him of trying to steal his wallet. Tensions have been high between the university and pro-Palestinian student groups. A student encampment stood for a month on campus last year before authorities shut it down citing safety issues. Seven people were charged with felonies related to the encampment's removal, though charges were dropped in May. The university, which has campus police, said it hired private security about a year ago to report suspicious activity in high-traffic areas, not to perform surveillance. 'No individual or group should ever be targeted for their beliefs or affiliations,' Grasso said.


San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Israel seized a Gaza-bound boat with Greta Thunberg on board. Can it do that?
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli naval forces, far from the country's shores, intercepted and seized a Gaza-bound ship carrying international activists, including Greta Thunberg, in an early morning raid Monday. The operation sparked accusations that Israel's actions, apparently in the high seas, were a breach of international law. The activists say their journey was meant to protest Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. The ship was carrying aid destined for people in Gaza, including baby formula and food. The activists, including Thunberg, were detained and were headed to Israel for likely deportation. It's not the first time Israel has halted ships carrying aid bound for the Palestinian territory. A raid in 2010 descended into violence between activists and Israeli commandos, leaving eight Turks and one Turkish-American killed. Most of the other operations against Gaza-bound boats have ended uneventfully, with ships diverted and activists detained. Israel says the latest ship planned to violate its blockade on Gaza and says it acted in accordance with international law. Can Israel storm a ship in the high seas? Here is a look at the legal debate. Intercepted far off the coast of Gaza The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the latest ship, says the Madleen was intercepted in international waters some 200 kilometers (124 miles) off the coast of Gaza, a claim that could not be independently verified. Israeli authorities have not disclosed the location where the ship was halted. Robbie Sabel, an international law expert and former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a state only has jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles (19 kilometers) from its shores. In general, states don't have the right to seize ships in international waters, but there are exceptions, including during armed conflict, Sabel added. He said that even before the latest war, Israel was in an armed conflict with Hamas, allowing it to intercept ships it suspected were violating its longstanding blockade of Gaza, which Egypt also enforced. Rights groups have long criticized the blockade as unlawful collective punishment against Palestinians. Sabel cited a U.N. report on the 2010 raid that ended in activist fatalities, which stated that 'attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade place the vessel and those on board at risk.' The debate over the legality of Israel's blockade remains unresolved among legal experts. The U.N. report urged states to be cautious in the use of force against civilian vessels and called on humanitarian missions to deliver aid through regular channels. It said a country maintaining a naval blockade 'must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance.' A debate over Israel's right to act Yuval Shany, an expert on international law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said that so long as Israel's blockade of Gaza is 'militarily justified' — meant to keep out weapons — and the ship intended to break it, Israel can intercept the vessel after prior warning. Whether the blockade is militarily justified is also up for debate. Suhad Bishara, head of the legal department at Adalah, a legal rights group in Israel representing the activists, said Israel was not justified in acting against a ship in international waters that posed no military threat. 'In principle, Israel cannot extend an arm into international waters and carry out whatever action against a ship there,' she said. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein said that 'everything that was done was done in accordance with international law,' referring to the ship takeover. Rights groups say the legal questions are complicated by Gaza's unique status. The United Nations and much of the international community view Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory, along with east Jerusalem and the West Bank, all of which Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want the three territories to form their future state. Israel argues that it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, when it pulled out its soldiers and settlers, even though it maintained control over Gaza's coastline, airspace and most of its land border. Hamas, which does not accept Israel's existence, seized power in Gaza two years later. Amnesty International says Israel has an obligation as the occupying power to make sure that Palestinians in Gaza have enough access to humanitarian supplies, something Amnesty says Israel was preventing by not allowing the Madleen through. Amnesty and other groups see the seizure of the Madleen as part of a campaign by Israel throughout the war to limit or entirely deny aid into Gaza. Israel says it has allowed enough aid to enter Gaza to sustain the population and accuses Hamas of siphoning it off, while U.N. agencies and aid groups deny there has been any systematic diversion. Israel's aid policy during the war has driven the territory toward famine, experts say, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accused by the International Criminal Court of using starvation as a method of warfare by restricting humanitarian aid into Gaza, charges he has rejected. 'By forcibly intercepting and blocking the Madleen, which was carrying humanitarian aid and a crew of solidarity activists, Israel has once again flouted its legal obligations towards civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip,' Amnesty International's secretary general, Agnès Callamard, said in a statement.


Hamilton Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Israel seized a Gaza-bound boat with Greta Thunberg on board. Can it do that?
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli naval forces, far from the country's shores, intercepted and seized a Gaza-bound ship carrying international activists, including Greta Thunberg, in an early morning raid Monday. The operation sparked accusations that Israel's actions, apparently in the high seas, were a breach of international law. The activists say their journey was meant to protest Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. The ship was carrying aid destined for people in Gaza, including baby formula and food. The activists, including Thunberg, were detained and were headed to Israel for likely deportation. It's not the first time Israel has halted ships carrying aid bound for the Palestinian territory. A raid in 2010 descended into violence between activists and Israeli commandos, leaving eight Turks and one Turkish-American killed. Most of the other operations against Gaza-bound boats have ended uneventfully, with ships diverted and activists detained. Israel says the latest ship planned to violate its blockade on Gaza and says it acted in accordance with international law. Can Israel storm a ship in the high seas? Here is a look at the legal debate. Intercepted far off the coast of Gaza The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the latest ship, says the Madleen was intercepted in international waters some 200 kilometers (124 miles) off the coast of Gaza, a claim that could not be independently verified. Israeli authorities have not disclosed the location where the ship was halted. Robbie Sabel, an international law expert and former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a state only has jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles (19 kilometers) from its shores. In general, states don't have the right to seize ships in international waters, but there are exceptions, including during armed conflict, Sabel added. He said that even before the latest war, Israel was in an armed conflict with Hamas, allowing it to intercept ships it suspected were violating its longstanding blockade of Gaza, which Egypt also enforced. Rights groups have long criticized the blockade as unlawful collective punishment against Palestinians. Sabel cited a U.N. report on the 2010 raid that ended in activist fatalities, which stated that 'attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade place the vessel and those on board at risk.' The debate over the legality of Israel's blockade remains unresolved among legal experts. The U.N. report urged states to be cautious in the use of force against civilian vessels and called on humanitarian missions to deliver aid through regular channels. It said a country maintaining a naval blockade 'must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance.' A debate over Israel's right to act Yuval Shany, an expert on international law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said that so long as Israel's blockade of Gaza is 'militarily justified' — meant to keep out weapons — and the ship intended to break it, Israel can intercept the vessel after prior warning. Whether the blockade is militarily justified is also up for debate. Suhad Bishara, head of the legal department at Adalah, a legal rights group in Israel representing the activists, said Israel was not justified in acting against a ship in international waters that posed no military threat. 'In principle, Israel cannot extend an arm into international waters and carry out whatever action against a ship there,' she said. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein said that 'everything that was done was done in accordance with international law,' referring to the ship takeover. Gaza and Israel's obligations under international law Rights groups say the legal questions are complicated by Gaza's unique status. The United Nations and much of the international community view Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory, along with east Jerusalem and the West Bank, all of which Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want the three territories to form their future state. Israel argues that it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, when it pulled out its soldiers and settlers, even though it maintained control over Gaza's coastline, airspace and most of its land border. Hamas, which does not accept Israel's existence, seized power in Gaza two years later. Amnesty International says Israel has an obligation as the occupying power to make sure that Palestinians in Gaza have enough access to humanitarian supplies, something Amnesty says Israel was preventing by not allowing the Madleen through. Amnesty and other groups see the seizure of the Madleen as part of a campaign by Israel throughout the war to limit or entirely deny aid into Gaza. Israel says it has allowed enough aid to enter Gaza to sustain the population and accuses Hamas of siphoning it off, while U.N. agencies and aid groups deny there has been any systematic diversion. Israel's aid policy during the war has driven the territory toward famine , experts say, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accused by the International Criminal Court of using starvation as a method of warfare by restricting humanitarian aid into Gaza, charges he has rejected. 'By forcibly intercepting and blocking the Madleen, which was carrying humanitarian aid and a crew of solidarity activists, Israel has once again flouted its legal obligations towards civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip,' Amnesty International's secretary general, Agnès Callamard, said in a statement. The group called for the immediate and unconditional release of the activists, who it said were on a humanitarian mission. ___ Follow AP's war coverage at Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .