Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

[Jenijenjen]

I disagree with the use of the word "sectarianism" in this context and Starmer is a total a*se to have introduced it. In my mind, sectarianism conjures up the hatred and vicious violence of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. 

The divide between the Greens and Reform are a long way from that and is more reminiscent of a time when the two main parties actually stood for something and voting was more a matter of following one's political beliefs. Nobody called that sectarianism. 

[Jules-and-Boo]

16 hours ago, DGM-1986 said:

country is in a real state at the min and all party’s have a part to play in that.

what the future holds who knows but it is worrying.

The country is in a real state. 
What worries me about the Greens is encouraging migration and openly offering benefits to all with visas. 
Where is the money for that coming from? 
As if there is spare money, as if there is growth. Where I their holistic manifesto, ensuring funds are available and this is sustainable, and regulated?

Incredibly dangerous and idealistic 

Edited 16 hours ago by Jules-and-Boo

[HeadNun]

1 hour ago, Jenijenjen said:

I disagree with the use of the word "sectarianism" in this context and Starmer is a total a*se to have introduced it. In my mind, sectarianism conjures up the hatred and vicious violence of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. 

The divide between the Greens and Reform are a long way from that and is more reminiscent of a time when the two main parties actually stood for something and voting was more a matter of following one's political beliefs. Nobody called that sectarianism. 

Oh I didn't realised Starmer had used the word. I don't mean they are stirring up division between themselves (ie between Reform and Greens), I mean they are stoking division within communities, and stirring up racial prejudice and religious discrimination. That is sectarianism, in my view. 

[Jenijenjen]

So I've done a little more research into the current use of the word, I hadn't realised it had latterly been used to describe anti Muslim feelings. Still don't like the use of the word.

These are horrible times and am fearful for the future.

[HeadNun]

55 minutes ago, Jenijenjen said:

So I've done a little more research into the current use of the word, I hadn't realised it had latterly been used to describe anti Muslim feelings. Still don't like the use of the word.

These are horrible times and am fearful for the future.

I didn't realise that either! I thought it just meant division within communities - religious, racial or otherwise. 

Yes, it is frightening. The days of the broad church political party are over. 

[alice]

 that’s just been misused first by Faraz and then Starmer. It’s evocative and negative.  But it’s flooding the news today.

[Sue]

4 hours ago, HeadNun said:

Spot on. Both peddling sectarianism. 

Sorry to be dim.

How are the Greens "peddling sectarianism"?

I have googled a definition and I can see how this might apply to Reform 🤬 but I can't see how it applies to the Greens?

[Suggsy]

2 hours ago, HeadNun said:

 I mean they are stoking division within communities, and stirring up racial prejudice and religious discrimination. That is sectarianism, in my view. 

Precisely this. It was alarming when Zac Goldsmith tried to exploit ethnic tensions as part of his London mayoral bid (he specifically targeted Hindu, Tamil and Sikh communities saying their jewellery was at risk from a Sadiq Khan wealth tax) but to my mind the Greens have practised this on a far more significant scale in Gorton and Denton. I don't know who Democracy Volunteers are, but reports of an uptick in family voting is also of concern. 

[Sue]

On 27/02/2026 at 12:32, Jenijenjen said:

It isn't our generation (sorry @Sue if I'm being presumptuous!) that will decide the outcome of elections but those in their 20s, 30s, 40s ... if they can be bothered to vote.

Ahem. No not presumptuous.

My grandchildrens' generation.

One can already vote and the other will soon be able to.  And I'm pretty sure they will do.

[alice]

But the democracy volunteers don’t seem to report their concerns until the voting closed. 

[Jenijenjen]

6 minutes ago, Sue said:

10 minutes ago, Sue said:

Sorry to be dim.

How are the Greens "peddling sectarianism"?

I have googled a definition and I can see how this might apply to Reform 🤬 but I can't see how it applies to the Greens?

 

I think the accusation derives from the Greens mobilising the Muslim vote, hence engaging in sectarian politics.

But happy to be corrected

 

 

[Sue]

6 minutes ago, Suggsy said:

Precisely this. It was alarming when Zac Goldsmith tried to exploit ethnic tensions as part of his London mayoral bid (he specifically targeted Hindu, Tamil and Sikh communities saying their jewellery was at risk from a Sadiq Khan wealth tax) but to my mind the Greens have practised this on a far more significant scale in Gorton and Denton. I don't know who Democracy Volunteers are, but reports of an uptick in family voting is also of concern. 

Could you be more specific as to how "the Greens have practiced this on a far more significant scale in Gorton and Denton"?

How exactly did they "try to exploit ethic tensions"?

[Suggsy]

@Sue the Green's campaign video showing Keir Starmer shaking hands with Modi and David Lammy shaking hands with Netanyahu is one such example. 

11 minutes ago, alice said:

But the democracy volunteers don’t seem to report their concerns until the voting closed. 

As I say, I don't know the organisation, but I would expect election observers to only report after polls have closed. To do otherwise could be perceived as interfering in the election. They might need to check patterns across multiple polling stations. Any public criticism by an independent observer mid-poll could discourage participation and could be interpreted as campaigning. Much safer / more robust to check observations and release after the event. 

Sorry - those posts merged. Not intended. 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

12 minutes ago, Sue said:

How are the Greens "peddling sectarianism"?

a) Because they published a leaflet in Urdu promising to give "Muslims a strong voice". This is reprehensible - just as a party that promised to give Protestants or Jews or Buddhists alone "a strong voice" would be acting in a sectarian manner. Parties - especially socialist ones like the English & Welsh Greens are now - should not be assymetrically promoting the interests of one religious group.

b) Because they published a video in Urdu and Bangla criticising Kier Starmer for meeting Narendra Modi, when Modi has nothing to do with the issues discussed. Modi is a Hindu nationalist bigot - but in this context, the Greens are just shitstirring existing tensions between British Hindus and British Muslims for the purpose of trying to win Muslim votes - see the first point.

FWIW I don't have any problem with parties communicating with the electorate in languages other than English (from Irish to Polish to Malayalam). What is very suspicious is when parties pump out sectarian messages only in one language... When Mamdani ran for Mayor of NYC (and won) he released plenty of campaign videos in multiple languages - but always with English subtitles too. There was never a suggestion he was sending different, sectarian messages to different groups.

 

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-greens-made-advert-urdu-164616073.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/uk-green-party-accused-of-sectarianism-after-releasing-videos-in-urdu-and-bangla-featuring-pm-modi-and-gaza/articleshow/128826689.cms

 

[Suggsy]

She also suggested that the 2017 Manchester terror attack (perpetrated by an Islamist extremist) was due to "divisiveness" and tried to pin the blame on the far right. Grim, really. 

[Sue]

I would have thought approaching Muslims (and other ethnic groups) and using their own language  was being inclusive, and demonstrating that they were being inclusive.

Unlike Reform, who appear to deliberately stir up hatred of particular groups of people.

Unlike Labour, who appear to hate supporters of  Palestine.

But this thread is supposed to be about James McCash's move to the Greens, so if people  want to discuss more general political issues, perhaps someone could start a thread in the lounge?

 

[Jules-and-Boo]

Unfortunately while “being inclusive” can be a good thing, being blind to how that is being rolled out is naive.

Greens, with Muslim deputy, and strategic voting are advocating open borders and no restrictions on benefits. 

Restore UK are advocating restrictions and reducing the number of illegal immigrants, and processes for asylum applications

Everyone in the middle is seeking power using whatever means necessary.

 

[alice]

The greens and reform have given a kick up the arse of the two main parties. We will see dramatic changes in the next six months.  
 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Sue said:

I would have thought approaching Muslims (and other ethnic groups) and using their own language  was being inclusive, and demonstrating that they were being inclusive.

The point (which you're swerving) is not that the Greens spread their message in a language other than English - it's what they have said, and why they're shy about saying the same thing in other languages, including English.

If a party in Northern Ireland circulates leaflets in Ulster Scots only that tells voters to elect them so they can be a strong Protestant voice, and has videos in Ulster Scots only that seek to discredit the First Minister by showing (a propos of nothing) images of them meeting the Pope - is that inclusivity or sectarianism?

Edited 9 hours ago by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Sue]

12 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The point (which you're swerving) is not that the Greens spread their message in a language other than English - it's what they have said, and why they're shy about saying the same thing in other languages, including English.

If a party in Northern Ireland circulates leaflets in Ulster Scots only that tells voters to elect them so they can be a strong Protestant voice, and has videos in Ulster Scots only that seek to discredit the First Minister by showing (a propos of nothing) images of them meeting the Pope - is that inclusivity or sectarianism?

I'm not deliberately swerving anything.

What exactly have they said in their communications in languages other than English that you object to?

Why would they put those communications in other languages when the whole point was to connect with a specific group of people?

Apologies if I've missed your point.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Saying one thing so everyone can understand, and something different that only select people can understand is not inclusive, it’s dangerous.

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves. 

I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)?

https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion

Edited 8 hours ago by Dogkennelhillbilly

[snowy]

37 minutes ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

Saying one thing so everyone can understand, and something different that only select people can understand is not inclusive, it’s dangerous.

 

That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 

[Jules-and-Boo]

Yes, but the context is important and the reason.

[Blah Blah]

On 27/02/2026 at 12:20, Moovart said:

I think if a councillor or an MP switches party then they should resign their post and wait until the next election before they can stand again. 

If a constituent voted for a person because of their party affiliation rather than for the person themselves, which I suspect is the most common vote, then that vote has basically been taken from the constituent by the councillor's or MP's defection.

Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense).

14 hours ago, Suggsy said:

To invoke another body part, I can't help thinking the Greens and Reform might be two cheeks of the same arse. Populism innit. 

That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.