Yesterday I wrote about #Bristol's Green Party operating as a cult. Today I'm writing about a former Lord Mayor who just escaped it.

Paula O'Rourke watched Green councillors perform emotional collapse instead of doing their jobs. She chose escape over complicity.

Former Lord Mayor Paula O’Rourke resigned from Bristol City Council’s Green Party group yesterday, reducing the Greens to 34 of 70 seats and stripping their governing majority. Her reason? Watching colleagues walk out of public meetings and wave placards at constituents expressing legally protected views.

Remember yesterday, I wrote about Bristol’s Green Party operating as a political cult - followers so psychologically captured they cannot acknowledge contradictions. O’Rourke’s resignation statement reads like a deprogramming narrative. She decided reclaiming her autonomy mattered more than maintaining tribal allegiance.

[If you haven’t read yesterday’s analysis of Green Party cult dynamics, start here. It provides the psychological framework for understanding why O’Rourke’s resignation matters.]

Her parting shot? “I cannot continue within a group that chooses symbolic protest over democratic responsibility.”

Translation: I signed up to run a city, not babysit emotionally fragile activists who think disagreement is violence.

One resignation just cost the Greens their governing majority. They now hold 34 of 70 council seats - 48.6% - and need explicit cooperation from parties they’ve spent 18 months alienating. But the real story isn’t the arithmetic - it’s that O’Rourke’s resignation validates every single psychological pattern I documented yesterday.

When Democratic Duty Meets Cult Logic.

Here’s what’s been happening: when members of the public turn up to express gender-critical views during public comment periods, Green councillors stage walkouts. They hold up handwritten signs and perform theatrical displays of moral superiority while actual constituents try to address their elected representatives.

O’Rourke watched this circus and concluded: this isn’t governance, it’s student union politics with a budget of £1.2 billion.

Her resignation statement doesn’t fuck about: “Walking out is a refusal of democratic duty. Holding placards in the face of members of the public is intimidating. It risks deterring citizens – particularly women – from ever raising concerns with their elected representatives again.”

The Greens’ response: “Local politicians everywhere cannot be expected to stay in a room if they feel under attack for their very existence.”

Members of the public expressing legally protected beliefs during designated public comment periods now constitute an “attack on existence” that justifies elected officials literally running away from their jobs.

Remember yesterday when I wrote about surrendering self-governance to the collective? This is exactly what it looks like - when you fuse identity with activist ideology so completely that disagreement becomes an existential threat rather than an intellectual challenge. O’Rourke maintained enough sovereignty to see it: councillors so captured they’ve forgotten they represent all constituents, not just approved ones.

The Legal Framework They’re Ignoring.

O’Rourke brings Supreme Court receipts. She cites Forstater v CGD Europe (gender-critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs) and For Women Scotland Ltd (the Equality Act protects both women’s sex-based rights and trans people’s gender reassignment rights - they’re competing rights requiring careful navigation).

Her position: councillors must engage with these conflicts through debate and policy-making.

The Green position: hearing legally protected beliefs is violence, justifying abandonment of constitutional duty.

Bristol’s council already has safeguards - the Monitoring Officer blocks hate speech, the Lord Mayor manages debate for civility. These exist precisely so councillors don’t need to perform emotional fragility whenever uncomfortable.

But the Greens want a new rule: if we don’t like what you’re saying, we leave and wave signs at you.

Remember yesterday’s piece about the evangelical playbook? Escalate to apocalyptic urgency until “hearing views” becomes “an attack on existence.” Watch it work in real-time.

O’Rourke quotes Shakespeare twice - “This too is true” - asserting that conflicting principles can coexist. But nuance is heresy to the cult. You’re either 100% aligned or literally unsafe to be near.

The Pattern Holds.

This resignation doesn’t exist in isolation. Let’s review Bristol’s Green track record:

• Promised 1,000 affordable homes annually while selling 1,222 existing council homes

• Implemented East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood despite 54% resident opposition, [installed final bollards at 4 am with police backup](LINK TO YOUR LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD COVERAGE)

• Proposed four-weekly bin collections and library closures six months after the election

• Stonewalled FOI requests about Bottle Yard Studios privatisation

• Now: walk out when constituents express Supreme Court-validated beliefs

Notice the pattern? Bristol’s Greens don’t do disagreement. They do moral performance and institutional capture dressed up as fighting for the marginalised. I’ve documented these contradictions before in my coverage of their housing shell game, the 4 am traffic scheme installation, and systematic FOI stonewalling.

Remember yesterday when I explained confirmation bias weaponisation? Here’s the formula in action: every piece of information gets filtered through the collective worldview. Failure becomes “complex nuance.” Broken promises become “strategic adjustments.” Walking out becomes “protecting vulnerable people.”

The cult behaviour extends beyond theatrical walkouts. Take the council’s “Everyone is Welcome” statement - promoted as grassroots community support, actually signed by a closed loop of publicly-funded organisations who depend on council grants. That’s not community consensus. That’s institutional capture presenting itself as democratic mandate. This is how the hive maintains itself.

When Allostatic Overload Breaks.

Remember yesterday’s piece about allostatic overload - that psychological breaking point when maintaining cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable? O’Rourke just hit it. She watched colleagues walk out of meetings, wave placards at constituents, and justify it as protecting the vulnerable. The gap between “we’re democratic representatives” and “we can’t hear views that make us uncomfortable” became too wide to rationalise.

Most Green councillors will dig deeper into denial. O’Rourke chose to acknowledge the contradiction and leave. That’s psychologically expensive but intellectually honest.

Her resignation statement: “I am taking this step to defend free speech, to uphold the democratic process, and to reaffirm that councillors must be able to hear from all citizens – not only those whose views are comfortable or convenient.”

She’s reclaiming autonomy: I’m a councillor first, activist second. Constitutional duty matters more than tribal allegiance.

When the Collective Eats Its Own.

The Green Party’s official response is a masterclass in not addressing the actual problem:

“We would like to thank Cllr O’Rourke for her time representing the people of Clifton for the Green Party, and are disappointed that she has chosen to see out the rest of her term as an independent.”

Passive voice doing heavy lifting. She “chose” to become independent - as if this happened spontaneously rather than because colleagues started cosplaying as traumatised activists whenever constituents said uncomfortable things.

“While we agree that members of the public have every right to make statements to their elected representatives, we also believe that councillors have every right to feel safe in their place of work.”

Notice what’s absent? Any acknowledgement that walking out might be inappropriate. Any engagement with O’Rourke’s constitutional arguments. Any recognition that “feeling safe” doesn’t mean “never hearing disagreement.”

Then: “The Green Party stands firmly in support of trans people and will continue to fight for all those most marginalised in our community.”

Translated: We’re the good guys. Anyone questioning our methods is attacking trans people. Shut up.

The collective doesn’t engage with criticism - it treats dissent as infection. O’Rourke raised constitutional concerns. The Green Party responded with tribal signalling, completely bypassing the actual argument.

The Polycule Structure Breaks Down.

Remember yesterday when I wrote about the Green polycule structure - those activist networks so enmeshed that leaving means unravelling your entire life? O’Rourke just did exactly that. Former Lord Mayor, longtime councillor, embedded in Bristol’s Green ecosystem. Social circles, political relationships, activist networks - all unravelling.

She did it anyway because watching colleagues wave placards at constituents while claiming they “feel unsafe” hearing legally protected beliefs crossed a line she couldn’t rationalise.

Most Green councillors are too deeply embedded to make that choice. Their entire identity fused with the movement. They can’t leave because there’s no autonomous “they” left.

O’Rourke maintained enough separation to reclaim her autonomy. The rest are still captured.

Here’s the structural revenge: O’Rourke’s departure strips the Greens of their slim majority. They now need explicit cooperation from Labour or Lib Dems for every committee chair appointment, every budget vote, and every policy decision. One former Lord Mayor with a conscience just handed veto power to the parties the Greens have spent 18 months treating as the enemy. That’s not just symbolic - it’s a fundamental shift in power dynamics at City Hall.

The Constitutional Question.

If Bristol’s Green councillors can walk out whenever constituents express uncomfortable views, what happens next?

Do housing campaigners get walked out on when they point out the Greens sold more homes than they built?

Do business owners get placard treatment when they object to traffic schemes killing their revenue?

Or is it just women expressing concerns about single-sex spaces who trigger the performance art?

The answer’s obvious. It’s only women expressing concerns about single-sex spaces who trigger this theatre. Because those are the only constituents the Greens can safely demonise without electoral consequences. Housing campaigners vote Green. Business owners might. But women worried about biological males in changing rooms? They can be labelled TERFs and dismissed.

If it’s only certain topics that justify abandoning democratic duty, that’s not principle. That’s tribal allegiance masquerading as moral courage.

And if it’s any topic making councillors uncomfortable, Bristol doesn’t have a functioning democracy. It has a self-selecting echo chamber that accidentally got elected.

O’Rourke knows which one it is. That’s why she left.

From the Anarch Position.

Remember yesterday when I explained the anarch position - maintaining inner sovereignty while observing without tribal allegiance? O’Rourke maintained enough separation between her identity and the collective that when cognitive dissonance became unbearable, she could see clearly: my colleagues are abandoning democratic duty to perform moral righteousness.

Most Green councillors can’t do that. They’ve surrendered self-governance so completely that the collective worldview is their worldview. Remember that psychological mechanism I detailed yesterday? Questioning means questioning their entire framework for understanding reality. The cost is too high, so they dig deeper into denial.

O’Rourke chose intellectual honesty over tribal belonging. It cost her the Green Party whip, political relationships, and made her persona non grata in Bristol’s activist circles.

She did it anyway.

The rest of the Green group will treat her as an apostate. They’ll explain why she was always problematic, why her constitutional arguments are actually bigotry, and why her departure proves the movement is purer without her.

That’s the cult closing ranks. The hive immune system identifying and expelling the infection.

One person maintained enough sovereignty to see the contradiction and leave. The rest surrendered that sovereignty long ago.

At least one person escaped. That’s something.

The Way Forward.

O’Rourke’s closing: “My hope is that by standing apart, I can help to restore a more honest, plural and respectful political culture – one in which we face disagreement, rather than flee from it.”

The Greens’ closing: “The Green Party stands firmly in support of trans people and will continue to fight for all those most marginalised in our community.”

Notice what’s missing? Any acknowledgement that walking out might be problematic. Any engagement with her arguments. Any suggestion that councillors should listen to constituents even when uncomfortable.

Just reflexive tribal signalling.

Bristol residents should ask: if your councillors can’t sit through public comments expressing Supreme Court-validated beliefs without fleeing, what else can’t they handle?

Budget scrutiny revealing housing promises were lies? Traffic scheme opposition from 54% of residents? FOI requests about financial decisions? Any disagreement at all?

Yesterday I documented the cult psychology. Today I’m showing you what escape looks like when someone reclaims their sovereignty from the collective.

The cult will survive. It will close ranks, dismiss her concerns, and continue operating as if democratic norms are optional when feelings are at stake.

Bristol’s paying the price. O’Rourke just stopped being willing to help collect the bill.

The question is how many more Bristolians will figure out what she already knows: when your ruling party thinks hearing disagreement is violence, you don’t have representatives anymore. You have activists with institutional power who’ve forgotten what democracy actually requires.

This is Part 2 of my Bristol Green Party cult series. Subscribe to follow Bristol’s political dysfunction as it unfolds.

And when Bristol’s bins don’t get collected, libraries close, and traffic gridlock worsens, remember: your councillors were too emotionally fragile to sit in a room and hear disagreement. That’s who’s running your city.