iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Indeed. I'm increasingly pessimistic about the prospects of doing so, but I hope to be proved wrong.

I do think that a number of people could have done more. I think @zackpolanski.bsky.social was uniquely placed to influence this one - for many of the same reasons that it must have been extremely hard for him.

030

Tbf, everyone had fair notice that this was coming back after spring conference though - so it shouldn't have come as a surprise.

050

Yeah, on the day it was too late - it needed to be worked on months in advance.

250

This video is excellent and sums it up for me. I still have hope that @zackpolanski.bsky.social *can* clearly make this argument to members. But it needs to be made clearly and unapologetically.

1176

Because changing the discussion platform will definitely solve the problem of entryism from a large, organised and motivated group of campaigners...?

100

(2) We don't need to take a position on what the outcome of the peace process looks like, because we believe in self-determination. Just get rid of the policy supporting a particular solution.

(1) I wouldn't talk about Zionism at all. It's not a political party's job to define a contested idiology; we can stick to talking about practical actions - things like ending arms sales and intelligence sharing with Israel, BDS, supporting a peace process...

Rob Ford @robfordmancs.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Reposted by Rosi Sexton

Another on the list of "things that are obvious from the evidence yet ignored" is "current immigration policy will deliver a great big hole in future budgets". The OBR currently assumes net migration bottoms out at 200k then rises. That isn't going to happen

522780

I don't recall voting on that particular motion, but if I had done then yes, I would have taken issue with that too.

000

I don't think members of the Green Party of England and Wales should be dictating what the solution looks like either way. It's the height of arrogance to think we as a party know best. Lots of people tried to put alternatives - I see no reason to rehash that here.

Problems always seem much easier to solve from a distance. Enjoy eating popcorn while Rome* burns. *along with everything else

Framing an issue in a way that effectively communicates your message is not the same as lying.

100

Lol. I don't think trying to convince a random person on the internet that they haven't come up with a great solution that just happened to elude everyone in the party is a good use of my time this morning. If you think you can do better - the door is open for you to join the party and fix it.

Work for a better system, yes. In the meantime, you still have to work with the system you have. Putting out messages that you KNOW will be misinterpreted in a harmful way and used against you is just sabotage.

100

And the leadership cannot easily change that process - any changes would have to be put to members at a future conference.

210

In that case you should know that communication is the art of getting your message across. If you KNOW that the media will try to undermine you, it's all the more important to shape your messages in a way that cannot easily be misrepresented.

My dude, not only have I read the rules, but I've been predicting something like this for YEARS, and trying to get the party to do something about it. It's a hard problem, and not one that can be fixed in the time frame we're talking about.

The leadership team can't launch reforms, for the same reason they can't override members on policy. That's not how the party is set up. Best they can do is bring a motion to next conference, which can be voted down by the same people who voted for this motion.

100

I still think this specific incident could have been handled better, even with the flawed systems we had to work with.

I agree entirely. I've been saying for years to anyone who would listen that the party's processes are not fit for purpose and need a complete overhaul, and that sooner or later this was going to lead to serious problems.

I think more focus on this motion from senior Greens prior to conference could have motivated more of the membership to be involved in the vote. Having significant numbers of activists absent from the crucial vote due to campaigning in the by-election was shortsighted.

100

You must be new to politics.

100

I'm not talking about "overruling", I'm talking about engaging with. Persuading, even. That's what debate is supposed to be about, isn't it?

I'm all for constructive debate - and encouraging membership engagement. I also think - and call me radical if you like - the job of a leader involves doing some.... leading. Especially when it comes to contentious issues like this.

I see what you're saying. Better still would have been organising members before conference & ensuring that the motion was referred back. Had senior members spoken out clearly earlier, this could have been averted. Trying to avoid media attention and hoping for the best was a doomed strategy.

210

Framing the motion around the human impact of the genocide rather than an abstract ideology that is heavily debated and most people know little about would have been much more effective at getting the public on side.

I think that is naive considering the nature of the media. There's a saying in politics - "when you're explaining, you're losing". This is an inherently complex topic, and there is no easy set of messages that can be relied on to 'come out on top' when facing a hostile press.

210

I guess I'm just really disappointed that we've gone from a party that was united in our condemnation of genocide to a party that's bitterly divided over the fallout from a manufactured controversy. If I were deliberately trying to damage the Green Party, I'm not sure what I'd be doing differently.

020

I can understand why some Jewish members (and non-members) feel threatened by this, although I acknowledge that's not universally shared. It's complicated.

100

I'm not Jewish and definitely don't want to talk over those who are. Some have highlighted incidents of "slippage" into actual antisemitism from some of those involved & I know that there are concerns around the widespread use of "Zionist" as an antisemitic dogwhistle.

Rosi Sexton @rosisexton.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

I think also the media response was entirely predictable. Moderate changes to the wording would have gone a long way to avoid ambiguity that's easy for opponents to exploit. The proposers were warned about this, and rejected any changes - so I can only assume it was the desired outcome.

3101

I expect the grotesque cruelty. It's the massive self-own that really stands out.

Rosi Sexton @rosisexton.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

Quite apart from being wrong on so many other levels, obviously.

150

Rosi Sexton @rosisexton.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

So they're going to livestream the martyring of an Islamic terrorist. That couldn't possibly end badly, could it?

1100

Rosi Sexton @rosisexton.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

I think we should also acknowledge that getting involved in party structures relies on having a lot more time, cognitive bandwidth and tolerance for abuse than many members have access to. Without change to improve the processes, involvement will remain inaccessible to many.

150

If it was carefully written, that's even worse.

020

No, no it doesn't. Being careful to accurately say what you mean and not make minority groups feel like they're being targeted isn't "triangulation", it's good communication.

100

The media being angry isn't a sign of doing something right unless you also think that Liz Truss had a fair point.

That's not a response to my point, though. People have different views - but we're not going to get very far at putting the party back together if each side keeps mischaracterising the arguments of the other.

100

I haven't suggested separating Israel from genocide either. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue.

100

Many of us have been saying it was an appallingly bad motion long before the media got hold of it. Suggesting that we're "accepting the media narrative" puts the cart before the horse.

150

Nobody said anything about "race neutral". There's so many staw men in this thread it's a fire hazard. But that's the whole shtick, isn't it? Pretending this is about something it isn't and then abusing anyone who disagrees.

100