Post
I’ve listened to the first 18 minutes of this half hour Channel 4 interview with Zack Polanski and, relative to what’s being said by Starmer, Davey, Badenoch and Farage, it’s incredibly refreshing.
But Polanski needs to be careful. There are a few angles he propagates that are built on sand. Will say more when I’ve listened to the whole thing
…For now, I’ll just add that the @thegreenparty has my vote (and has done for a while). They are so much closer to reality than the fantasies sold by Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and Reform – and probably than Your Party too – that at the very least there is the prospect of them becoming more aligned with our predicament*. More on their frailties in a bit.
(*polyculmination / metaconsequence)
…Last night, I persuaded my family to watch the 30-minute interview that Channel 4 did with Zack Polanski 3 weeks ago. It was interesting to watch their reaction.
A lot of chatter and inattentiveness initially, and then a creeping realisation that he was saying things no other UK party leader is saying (that I’m aware of) and listening carefully. For the most part, things which they and I agree with.
But I Implied above that there are things he said which concern me…
…So here’s where I think Zack slips up.
First up:
C4: “Are you committed to Net Zero by 2030? If so, how?”
Zack: “I am undoubtedly committed to it, and I think that anyone who isn’t committed to it, that’s sociopathic politics.”
Given that Zack did a good job of providing nuanced yet very clear answers to other questions, this was a major failing. He effectively committed to an undeliverable lie. Net Zero is Big Oil talk, and in the sense that Business As Usual means it, it’s a fiction…
…My concern is that Zack is so keen to talk about social justice issues – quite rightly – that he’s squandering the opportunity the Greens have to bring some honesty to our climate predicament.
He goes on to address immigration. He does it well, and in a way that is so far ahead of other parties, but here too he ends up over-simplifying. So keen to put out an alternative rhetoric of control that he is dishonest about its complexity and the inherent *lack of control* that we have…
…My final main criticism is his talk about taxation. He more or less completely misses the point about the nature of tax
https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115292221298142895
But I do want to emphasise that relative to the other parties, his rhetoric is light years ahead.
I hope he can improve on the above 💚
@urlyman there is a balance to be found between adding nuance and talking in terms most folk can understand.
You and I both know that there are issues with the Net Zero rhetoric. But the base concept of bringing overall emmissions down is easy to understand, and it may be more useful to do that under the Net Zero headline that is familiar, than get caught up in semantic discussions that will turn many people off.
That balance is especially precarious when you're just getting your voice established in the public consciousness.
@urlyman there is an element, when it comes to the electorate, of "you can't handle the truth".
Only an electorate with a reasonable base level of civics education would even come close. So a level of mendacity is built into the public discourse to avoid spooking any horses...
@rgarner I get that. My point is that he did a good job of handling the truth in other areas of the interview. He proved it can be done. Just not in the one area the Greens are most known for!
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
