The Green Party: A Not For Prophet Organisation?
Zionism, Women, Islam, Drugs, The Supreme Court, And The Pavement In Ipswich. Except, 404. Definition Not Found.
[The Green Party of England and Wales. A Not For Prophet Organisation? © Green Party of England and Wales.]
With nine days until the May 7 local elections, Green Party leader Zack Polanski is asking for your vote. This is what you need to know before you give it.
There is a man in Ipswich who knows exactly what a woman is. Or, so he believes, at least.
She is someone who doesn’t belong here.
He found Susan — @truthcanbehard — standing in a public street on a sunny Saturday. He told her Ipswich didn’t want her. He told her Ipswich was very progressive. He told her Ipswich wanted freedom for trans people and LGBTIQ+ rights. Then, in a sentence that collapsed before it finished itself, he told her: “We call that possibly social media information.”
Even after wiping his spit off her face — her words, posted publicly on X — Susan reported this man had to be repeatedly told not to touch her when he grabbed her arm.
Her words, not mine: “Aggressive little man brought a whole bunch of misogyny to shut women up when talking about same sex intimate care.”
She named it correctly. Hold that thought. We’ll come back to it.
Meanwhile, in a television studio, the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales — a party that wants to run your council, set your children’s curriculum, and govern your city — was asked to define a woman.
Zack Polanski — Assembly Member, party leader, architect of the most dramatic political surge the Greens have seen in a generation. Which, given what follows, is either impressive or cautionary depending on where you’re standing. In October 2025, he looked into the camera on Piers Morgan Uncensored and said:
“A woman is a gender.”
He said a woman can have a penis. He said biological sex is “not necessarily” binary.
And then — with the particular confidence of a man who has never had to be accountable for being wrong — he said he knows more about gender than the UK Supreme Court. His precise words: “I think I understand more about gender than they do.”
He was not nervous when he said it. He was not hedging. There was no visible discomfort, no pause, no sense that he understood the weight of what he had just said. He said it the way you say the weather.
The Supreme Court heard him. Considered the matter. And six months before that interview — in April 2025 — ruled, in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, that “woman” in the Equality Act means biological female. The judgment runs to 88 pages. The conclusion does not.
Polanski had the ruling. He had the judgment. He chose his answer anyway.
Now, take a breath and pause, to notice what that means.
His position remains unchanged.
The Green Party’s official policy supports gender self-identification. Polanski’s statement on Piers Morgan was not a deviation from party policy. It was a summary of it.
Frankly, this translates as, every Green candidate standing in every ward on May 7th is standing on a platform that says a woman is a gender. Every leaflet through every door. Every vote they are asking for.
The Green Party has not required him to revise either.
You see. There is something the mainstream commentary has buried beneath the antisemitism headlines. Zack Polanski is Jewish. He grew up in what he described as a very Zionist home. He leads a party whose internal Greens for Palestine WhatsApp group — first reported by The Telegraph — produced members describing Jews as “an abomination to this planet,” celebrating the arson of Hatzola Northwest ambulances in Golders Green as a possible false flag, and arguing that activists had been “scared into” using the word Zionists instead of Jews. His own family were reported to be disgusted by what they read.
His own family were disgusted. His party is still open for business.
Meanwhile, this is the party that welcomed Tony Greenstein — a man expelled from Labour for antisemitism, convicted of criminal damage, and currently facing terrorism charges — who once described Israel as Hitler’s bastard offspring at the Palestine Expo conference in London, July 2019. The Green Party told the Jewish Chronicle, at that time, they were open to anyone who shares their values. They subsequently suspended him. Motion A105 — tabled to formally declare Zionism a form of racism — and to call for a single Palestinian state replacing Israel entirely — was tabled at the party’s spring conference in 2026. It failed. Due to technical issues with the online voting system. The motion may return at a future conference.
Read that again.
A motion to declare Zionism a form of racism failed at spring conference. Due to technical issues. It may return.
Polanski’s response to Jewish communities feeling unsafe was to tell Haaretz journalist Hagar Shezaf there was “a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety.” He had previously sent a briefing to party activists warning them not to make antisemitic statements publicly — framing the risk as reputational rather than moral. The Hatzola Northwest ambulances in Golders Green were real. The sixty-one unpaid volunteers who run that service are real. The families reading those WhatsApp messages are real.
The ambulances were real. The families are real. The conversation about whether their fear is perceived or actual is something Zack Polanski is still having with himself.
He hasn’t started the conversation with Susan yet either.
What The Politics Produces.
So, more broadly speaking, this is not a story that’s strictly about gender. Gender is the surface. Beneath it is something that has been building for longer than most people have been paying attention — the architecture of incoherence — and what happens when it reaches leadership level and nobody inside the building notices.
You see. What happened to Susan in Ipswich is not a local incident. It is a national argument made physical.
The man in Ipswich did not arrive from nowhere. He arrived from somewhere specific. He arrived from a political culture in which a leader can say “a woman is a gender” on national television, claim superiority over the Supreme Court, and face no meaningful consequence from his own party machine.
That is a permission structure.
Permission structures have consequences.
This is not guilt by association. A leader who refuses to draw a line does not cause every incident that follows. He simply removes the cost of crossing it.
The Green Party became the first political party in British history to lose a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 — brought by former deputy leader Shahrar Ali, expelled for his gender-critical beliefs. The party did not draw the line then either.
And in Ipswich, on a sunny Saturday, someone found the crossing unencumbered.
Polanski won’t draw the line. So someone on a pavement in Ipswich draws it for him. With his spit on her face. With his hand on a woman’s arm. And with his absolute certainty — untroubled, uncomplicated, shining — that he is the progressive one in this exchange.
The Waiting Room.
To understand how we arrived here, you have to go back to the foundation.
The Green Party is not a party.
What it is — and this is the part that requires you to look at the structure rather than the surface — is a coalition of grievances that happen to be pointing at the same target from completely different directions and for completely different reasons.
It is, if you want the honest version, less a political party and more a rave with a manifesto. The March 28th Trafalgar Square gathering said everything you need to know — a stage, a crowd, an atmosphere more festival than policy platform, and a drug legalisation pledge that at least made the evening internally consistent.
For the Muslim community watching, that pledge was not a minor policy detail. The prohibition on intoxicants in the Quran is not a guideline. It is not a lifestyle preference. It sits in the same doctrinal category as the definition of a woman. Which means the Green Party has now managed to be theologically incompatible with Islam on two separate fronts — and is still asking for the Muslim vote. Can that coalition hold?
No. Because it will be faster than the biblical Red Sea parting — and with considerably less chance of anyone walking safely through to the other side.
As to the why. Well, you have the environmental purists who joined in 2015 and regard Gaza as a distraction from net zero. You have the identity politics activists for whom the environment is almost secondary to the revolution. You have Muslim voters who are socially conservative, economically left, and theologically committed to a definition of womanhood that Polanski has explicitly rejected on camera. You have metropolitan progressives who are socially libertarian and culturally fluent in a language most working class voters find somewhere between baffling and insulting. You have working class Labour refugees who couldn’t care less about gender politics or net zero but are furious — correctly furious — about their heating bills. And you have the anti-establishment anarchists who simply want to burn the furniture and worry about the rest later. All that’s missing is Uncle Tom Cobley and his entourage to complete the full deck, so to speak.
You see. These groups do not merely disagree at the margins.
They hold mutually exclusive visions of what the Green Party should become.
None of them have been asked to reconcile those visions yet. Not at conference. Not in policy. Not in the one place it actually matters — in a council chamber, on a binding vote, with a community watching. Because opposition requires no reconciliation. In opposition you all shout at the same wall and call it solidarity.
Byline Times revealed in April 2026 that the Green Party has no nationally binding rules for selecting local candidates. Polanski acknowledged at the party’s election launch that vetting candidates had been a “real challenge.” The party is standing thousands of candidates on May 7th. None of them were selected under a consistent national standard.
From the moment you govern — the moment you write a budget, set a schools policy, vote on a planning application — someone has to choose. Choices have losers. And losers remember.
A coalition of the disavowed is not a party. It is a waiting room.
Everyone sat together temporarily because the other doors were closed.
Mission Creep.
What’s more by luck than chance is that nobody planned this.
The Green Party set out to be the conscience of British politics. Environmental witness. Protest vehicle. The party that made you feel better about your recycling and your reusable cup.
Then Gaza changed the temperature. Then Labour collapsed under Starmer. Then Polanski arrived with energy the party hadn’t felt in a generation. Then the electoral landscape fractured into five directions at once. As if hypnotically.
And the Greens — without a single strategic decision being taken, without a vote, without a manifesto commitment to any of it — found themselves here. 225,000 members. Five MPs. Candidates in over 95% of English wards on May 7th. Projected by some models to take control of up to nine London boroughs. Potentially the largest party in the capital.
Nobody in the Green Party in 2020 drew up a plan that said: and then we govern Sheffield. Or Norwich. Or your borough. With eyes wide open.
They arrived by drift, not design. Each step felt logical from the last. The destination was never voted on.
Mission creep.
And mission creep only functions — even chaotically — if there is a coherent centre of gravity pulling everything in the same direction.
Unless, of course, you’re Polanski, who worked as a hypnotherapist on Harley Street. During which time, in 2013 he conducted a session on a journalist seeking to increase her breast size through hypnotherapy. In a BBC Humberside interview that resurfaced in March 2026, he defended the practice, saying there was “starting to become anecdotal evidence, at least, of a growth in breast size.” He is the man asking you to trust his understanding of gender. He is the man who cannot define a woman. The hypnotherapy line in this article is not metaphor. It is biography.
The verdict? What they have is a leader who cannot answer — in plain English, without qualification, without hypnotherapy, without a seminar — the question a five-year-old could answer.
The Quran And The Gender.
And this is the part the mainstream commentary has almost entirely missed.
The Muslim community did not drift toward the Green Party accidentally. Muslim communities in Britain are diverse and internally contested — on politics, on practice, on interpretation. What the mainstream theological tradition across every major school of Islamic jurisprudence is not divided on is the definition of a woman. Progressive interpretations exist. They are not the consensus.
There is genuine value overlap with Green politics — on environmental stewardship, on economic justice, on opposition to predatory lending, on institutional accountability.
The Quranic concept of khalifa — humanity as steward, not owner, of the earth — maps almost precisely onto Green environmental philosophy. The Islamic prohibition on riba — usury, extractive finance — aligns with Green opposition to financialisation. The concept of adl — justice as structural obligation, not sentiment — rhymes with the Green economic platform.
The overlap is real. It is not superficial. Stay with that.
Because, on economics and justice and earth stewardship, both traditions are reading from the same page.
Now, take a moment. Just a moment, and think about what that means for the coalition.
They are reading from completely different books on social and sexual ethics. Understandably, you may wish to read that line again, and who can blame you?
On one side: a faith tradition in which the woman’s body, her birth, and her role as mother are settled, sacred, and protected. On the other: a party that held an official policy describing Caesarean sections as expensive and risky, pledging to reduce birth interventions, and treating birth as a non-medical event — a policy linked by official inquiries to maternity units where mothers and babies died. When challenged, the leader said: “It’s not that we have changed our minds.” The policy was deleted from the website. Quietly. Without a vote. If this article leaves you without so much as a murmur now, it may well be a thought you return to.
You see. For observant Muslims, the definition of a woman is not a philosophical puzzle. It is not a matter of lived experience or political positioning. It is not subject to revision by a party leader on a chat show. It is settled — by a framework that predates Zack Polanski by fourteen centuries and will outlast him by considerably more. Which is, to put it mildly, a longer track record than Piers Morgan Uncensored.
So. On the one hand you have a leader who has built a significant part of his electoral coalition on Muslim votes — from communities whose entire worldview rests on a framework where that question has one answer — while simultaneously, on the other, choosing not to give that answer because another faction of his coalition would detonate the moment he did.
It was Genevieve Gluck — @WomenReadWomen — who made the logical endpoint explicit. Gluck is a gender-critical researcher and writer. Her position on this is well known and openly held. Which makes what she identifies no less accurate. If a woman is a gender rather than a biological human being, then womanhood is a category available for anyone to claim. Women are not a sex class. They are fundamentally, well, a performance?
I bet the Muslim voter heard that clearly. Wouldn’t you think?
Susan knows. She felt it on her face in Ipswich.
The Fuse.
So, the coalition holds for now. Because opposition is easy.
You vote against Islamophobia. You march for Palestine. You talk about housing and justice and dignity and you never — not once — have to legislate on anything that forces the underlying contradictions into the open.
However, the moment the Greens hold real executive power — and May 7th may deliver exactly that across multiple London boroughs — someone has to write a budget. Someone has to vote on inclusive sex education materials in schools. Someone has to set a framework for same sex intimate care that answers the question the man in Ipswich was so determined to prevent Susan from discussing. That someone will be standing in both lines of fire, metaphorically speaking.
And that is precisely where the flame meets the touchpaper. A Green councillor in a Muslim-majority ward — bound by party policy, accountable to an activist base that expects full delivery on the complete progressive platform — will be required to vote for inclusive LGBTQ+ education materials in local schools. Not as an abstract policy position debated at a conference. As an actual vote. On an actual night. In an actual council chamber. With Muslim parents in the public gallery who did not vote Green for this.
No. One would think it more likely they would vote Green for housing. For Gaza. For economic dignity. For the same reasons Susan stands on pavements — because the mainstream stopped listening. That councillor cannot vote both ways. The party whip goes one direction. The community that elected them goes another. No whiplash. The institution doesn’t feel it. And in that room, on that night, with that vote, the coalition that won the seat does not survive the governing of it. The touchpaper was always there. Executive power is simply the match.
And that is when the Muslim voter looks around and asks the question.
The Greens cannot give them what they actually need without destroying the other half of their coalition.
You see. This is what nobody told them when they were handing out the leaflets. Nobody said: here is the full platform. Here is what comes with the housing policy. Here is what comes with the Gaza solidarity. Here is what you are voting for when you vote for us.
The contradictions are not differences of emphasis. They are not matters for a working group or a policy consultation. They are direct conflicts between two frameworks that both consider themselves non-negotiable.
When the peeling begins — and the logic of everything mapped here says it will — the infrastructure for what comes next already exists. Over 1,800 mosques. Community networks running decades deep. A generation of younger British Muslims who watched Starmer handle Gaza, watched the two-child benefit cap, watched the Bangladesh deportation comments, and carry no emotional loyalty to any existing party whatsoever.
They are available.
Structurally. Historically. For the first time.
When the Muslim bloc leaves the Green waiting room, the question is no longer simply whether an alternative vehicle emerges — the infrastructure, the demographic shift, and the accumulated grievance all point in one direction — but whether someone builds it with the institutional depth to make it last. Not Galloway. Not Your Party. Something institutionally grounded. Theologically coherent. Generationally led. Speaking Islamic values in the language of British democratic politics.
Under proportional representation — which the Greens themselves are advocating — five percent of the British electorate produces approximately thirty-two parliamentary seats. That is not speculation. That is arithmetic.
Thirty-two seats is not a minority interest.
Thirty-two seats is a kingmaker.
Imagine the morning after the election that produces it.
The Three Questions I Apply To Everything Under My Purview.
Answer honestly.
Is it logical?
A party that cannot define its own core terms. A leader who told a national television audience he knows more than the Supreme Court — and then watched the Supreme Court settle the question without him. A coalition of mutually exclusive value systems held together by a shared enemy rather than a shared philosophy.
No. It is not logical. The logic was always borrowed from Labour’s collapse. Remove the collapse and the rationale dissolves with it.
Is it practical?
You cannot govern with a membership of 225,000 people who joined for twenty-five different reasons. You cannot write a schools policy that simultaneously satisfies the trans activist and the Muslim parent. You cannot set a social care framework while refusing to define the sex at the centre of it. You cannot lead a party when your primary survival strategy is to perform every question rather than answer any of them.
No. It is not practical.
What is the likely outcome?
Fragmentation. But fragmentation that clarifies rather than simply destroys. The Greens revert to what they were before 2024 — an educated, metropolitan protest party with a handful of MPs and a cautionary lesson about the difference between a pressure group and a governing institution. A Muslim political bloc finds its own voice, its own vehicle, its own parliamentary presence. The working class refugees drift toward wherever the anti-establishment anger settles next. And Labour is forced — finally, painfully — into a genuine reckoning with what it actually stands for.
British politics does not resolve. It amputates.
And when you look back at this from the other side of May 7th, you will know exactly when it began.
Now. Back To Susan, And What She Already Knew.
Susan was standing in a public street in Ipswich on a sunny Saturday, talking about same sex intimate care — a woman’s right to be washed, dressed, and cared for by a biological female in her most vulnerable moments — when a man decided she didn’t belong there.
According to Susan’s own account, posted publicly on X and without retraction: he spat on her. Somewhere nearby, someone was doing their shopping. He grabbed her arm. He told her his town didn’t want her kind.
He was, in his own mind, the progressive one in the exchange.
This is what “a woman is a gender” looks like when it leaves the television studio and reaches the pavement. Polanski says it with a smile and a calm voice and a look of someone who finds the question slightly tiresome. Someone in Ipswich uses the same logic to eject a woman from public space. With his hands. With his spit.
The Supreme Court answered the question in April 2025.
Biological sex. The Equality Act. Settled law.
Zack Polanski has not revised his position. His party has not required him to. The institutional machinery that would force that revision does not exist — because the party that would build it has never agreed on what it is, what it believes, or who it is actually for.
Nine days, and counting down.
That is how long before the votes are counted. Before the results come in. Before we find out how many councils, how many wards, how many borrowed mandates land in the hands of a party that cannot answer the question.
What does that feel like from where you’re standing?
Nine days.
We started with a man in Ipswich who knows exactly what a woman is.
She was someone who didn’t belong there.
And somewhere tonight, in your borough or someone else’s, a Green candidate is knocking on doors with a leaflet that says a woman is a gender. The waiting room is full. The doors are about to open. Nobody has agreed on what happens next.
404. Definition not found.
Yet, Susan still holds her position.
Sources And Citations.
All claims in this article are sourced to named, verifiable, publicly available material. Every source listed below was accessed and confirmed before publication. The Almighty Gob does not publish unverified claims.
The Piers Morgan Uncensored Interview — October 9, 2025 Zack Polanski’s appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored, in which he stated “a woman is a gender,” said biological sex is “not necessarily” binary, and said he understands gender better than the UK Supreme Court. Source: Piers Morgan Uncensored, YouTube, 9 October 2025. Reported by Pink News (13 October 2025), DIVA Magazine (15 October 2025), PJ Media (10 October 2025), ZeroHedge (11 October 2025), Modernity News (11 October 2025). Polanski’s precise words on the Supreme Court: “Well, yes, actually in this case, I do.”
The UK Supreme Court Ruling — 16 April 2025 For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The judgment runs to 88 pages. Sources: UK Supreme Court judgment (16 April 2025). House of Commons Library research briefing CBP-10259. Equality and Human Rights Commission. For Women Scotland. Sex Matters. Bates Wells legal analysis. Scottish Government response (gov.scot).
The Green Party Official Policy On Gender Self-Identification The Green Party’s official policy supports gender self-identification. Source: Green Party of England and Wales published policy. Confirmed in Polanski’s Attitude magazine interview, February 2026.
Polanski On The Supreme Court Ruling — Attitude Magazine, February 2026 Polanski stated: “So the Supreme Court ruling has been deeply divisive and actually to hear the Prime Minister say that’s what the Supreme Court has decided… That’s not how the Supreme Court works.” He encouraged politicians to legislate to protect trans rights despite the ruling. Source: Attitude magazine, February 2026.
The Antisemitic WhatsApp Messages — March 2026 Leaked WhatsApp messages from the Green Party’s internal Greens for Palestine group, first reported by The Daily Telegraph (March 2026), showed members describing Jews as “an abomination to this planet,” claiming Jews “murder, bomb and starve” children, suggesting the Golders Green Hatzola ambulance arson was a “false flag” carried out by Jews, and arguing activists had been “scared into” using the word Zionists instead of Jews. After the leak, members discussed moving to Signal. Sources: The Daily Telegraph (March 2026). Jewish Chronicle (March 2026). GB News (March 2026). European Conservative (March 2026). Jewish News (April 2026).
Polanski’s Family Response Polanski’s family were reported to be disgusted by the WhatsApp messages. Source: GB News (March 2026). Times of Israel (March 2026).
Tony Greenstein — Joining And Suspension Tony Greenstein — expelled from Labour in 2018 for antisemitism, convicted of criminal damage in 2023, and currently facing terrorism charges under the Terrorism Act 2000 — joined the Green Party in March 2026. He described Israel as “Hitler’s bastard offspring” at the Palestine Expo conference in July 2019. The Green Party told the Jewish Chronicle they were “open to anyone who shares our values.” Greenstein was subsequently suspended — by a vote of 11 to 1 — in April 2026. Sources: Jewish Chronicle (27 March 2026). GB News (April 2026). Jerusalem Post (April 2026). Jewish Chronicle (April 2026). Tony Greenstein’s own blog. Wikiquote.
The Zionism Is Racism Motion — Spring Conference 2026 Motion A105, tabled at the Green Party’s spring conference in 2026, sought to formally define Zionism as racism, position the party as explicitly anti-Zionist, and call for a single Palestinian state replacing Israel entirely. It would also have formally disavowed the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The motion failed to proceed to a vote due to technical issues with the online voting system. It may return at a future conference. Sources: Times of Israel (March 2026). Jewish News (April 2026). Jewish Chronicle (March 2026). European Conservative (March 2026).
Polanski’s Haaretz Interview — April 2026 Polanski told Haaretz journalist Hagar Shezaf: “there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety.” He also described Labour’s antisemitism allegations against his party as “an increasingly weaponised, cynical political attack.” Sources: Haaretz (22 April 2026). Jewish Chronicle (22 April 2026).
Polanski’s Briefing To Party Activists Polanski sent a briefing to Green Party activists warning them not to make antisemitic statements publicly, framing the risk as reputational. The briefing read: “Those who oppose us will be looking for the opportunity to say that we are a bunch of unpleasant, vengeful anti-Semites. They will seek to bait us into making statements emotionally, and smear us whenever they can. Don’t take the bait!” Source: GB News (March 2026).
The Hatzola Ambulance Arson — Golders Green Four ambulances belonging to Hatzola Northwest — a Jewish volunteer emergency service operating since 1979 with sixty-one unpaid volunteers — were set alight in the car park of Machzikei Hadath synagogue, Highfield Road, Golders Green, in March 2026. The service remained operational throughout. Sources: Community Security Trust. Jewish Chronicle. The Almighty Gob (March 2026 — Hatzola ambulance arson investigation).
The Green Party Maternity Policy — HE502 The Green Party held an official policy — HE502 — pledging to “work to reduce the number of interventions in childbirth” and describing Caesarean sections as “expensive and, when not medically required, risky.” The policy was linked by official inquiries to the maternity scandals at Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury and Telford, and East Kent — in which mothers and babies died. When challenged, Polanski told Sky News: “it’s not that we have changed our minds.” The policy was deleted from the website. It was not formally abandoned through conference until 2026 — under pressure from over fifty MPs. Sources: New Statesman (June 2024, March 2026). Sky News. AOL/PA Media (March 2026). British Brief (March 2026). House of Commons. Dr Bill Kirkup report (Morecambe Bay, 2015). Donna Ockenden report (Shrewsbury and Telford, 2022).
The Trafalgar Square Gathering — March 28, 2026 The Together Against The Far Right rally and House Against Hate rave took place at Trafalgar Square on March 28, 2026. Organised by R3 Soundsystem and Together Alliance. Polanski and Hannah Spencer both appeared on stage. Polanski told Huck magazine: “It’s so important because it’s joy, and right now the world can feel so grim.” Sources: Rolling Stone UK (March 2026). Huck Magazine (March 2026). Al Jazeera (March 2026). Together Alliance. Hyphen (March 2026).
Green Party Drug Legalisation Policy The Green Party officially supports the legalisation of drugs, including cannabis. This policy was among those promoted at the March 28th Trafalgar Square gathering. Source: Green Party of England and Wales published policy. Green Party 2024 general election manifesto.
The May 7 Local Elections — Scale And Projections Over 25,046 candidates were nominated to stand in English local elections on May 7, 2026. The Green Party stood candidates in over 95% of wards. YouGov MRP (April 2026) projected the Greens leading the vote on four London councils in central estimates, potentially up to eight in upper-bound scenarios. Bombe model (published in The Guardian, March 2026) projected the Greens winning up to 548 London council seats. Green Party membership stood at 225,000 as of April 10, 2026. Sources: Democracy Club (April 2026). YouGov MRP (April 2026). The Guardian (March 2026). Wikipedia — 2026 United Kingdom local elections. Institute for Government. Green Party of England and Wales.
Susan — @truthcanbehard — Ipswich Incident Susan posted publicly on X: “Even after wiping his spit off my face, this guy had to be repeatedly told not to touch me when he grabbed my arm on Saturday in Ipswich. Aggressive little man brought a whole bunch of misogyny to shut women up when talking about same sex intimate care.” Source: Susan, @truthcanbehard, X (formerly Twitter). Post published publicly and without retraction.
Genevieve Gluck — @WomenReadWomen Genevieve Gluck is a gender-critical researcher and writer. Her post on X (April 2026) described Polanski’s statement as meaning women are “nothing more than a man’s fetish.” Source: Genevieve Gluck, @WomenReadWomen, X (formerly Twitter), April 27, 2026.
Proportional Representation And The Muslim Vote Muslim communities represent approximately five percent of the British electorate. Under proportional representation — which the Green Party officially supports — five percent of the national vote produces approximately thirty-two parliamentary seats. Sources: Office for National Statistics (census data). Green Party PR policy. Electoral Calculus.
Byline Times — Candidate Vetting Crisis, April 10, 2026 The Green Party has no nationally binding rules for selecting local candidates. Polanski admitted vetting was a “real challenge” at the party’s election launch. Investigation by Josiah Mortimer. Source: Byline Times, 10 April 2026.
Byline Times — Gender-Critical Legal Challenge The Green Party became the first political party in British history to lose a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The case was brought by former deputy leader Shahrar Ali, who was expelled for his gender-critical beliefs. Two further legal actions were brought by Emma Bateman and Dawn Furness on similar grounds. Sources: Byline Times (August 2023). Spiked Online (27 April 2026).
© The Almighty Gob — John Langley. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without prior permission is prohibited. The Almighty Gob is published at thealmightygob.com and distributed across the publication’s seven-platform network. Unauthorised reproduction may constitute copyright infringement.