Green-led councils are eyeing a range of crackpot policies, including ditching school exams, scrapping Prevent and refusing to co-operate with immigration enforcement. The Telegraph has the story.
Three London councils – Hackney, Lewisham and Haringey – said they wanted to lobby the Government on a series of national issues over education, home affairs and counter-terrorism following Green wins in the local elections on May 7th.
The Greens won 441 seats and seized control of five councils for the first time in the party’s history. But concerns have been raised that the Left-wing party could use its powers to “undermine vital safeguarding measures”.
Scrapping “high-stakes formal testing” in schools, such as GCSEs and A-levels, is one of the policy ideas being explored.
In Hackney, East London, Green councillors said they would refuse to share data of migrant victims of domestic abuse with immigration enforcement agencies.
Instead, they advocated a firewall to be established between the police and the Home Office, which could frustrate attempts by the Government to tackle Britain’s illegal immigration crisis. …
The Green Party’s manifesto also includes plans to lobby the Government to axe Prevent, the Government’s deradicalisation programme aimed to stop people from “becoming terrorists and supporting terrorism”. …
They also hope to convince the Supreme Court to rewrite the Code of Practice, which would “allow for trans inclusion in single-sex services”, undermining efforts to keep biological men from participating in women’s sports or entering female prisons. …
In Lewisham, priorities for the newly elected Green council include “twinning [the borough] with a Palestinian town”, decolonising public spaces and establishing a slavery museum to acknowledge the area’s links to the transatlantic slave trade.
They will also refuse to share information with immigration enforcement agencies and will instead “support” those targeted by raids. …
In Haringey, the council is now being run by a Green minority administration after the party won the largest number of seats.
If the Greens are involved in a ruling coalition, their councillors will “remove barriers to access to public services to those in the immigration and asylum system, as much as is legally possible”.
Green leaders also want the council to stop banking with Barclays because they claim it “funds Israel’s genocide in Gaza”. …
In Lambeth, there is also no overall control, but the Greens are again the largest political force. They hope to “oppose immigration raids” and say “will not cooperate, share intelligence, or grant access to immigration enforcement, beyond the minimum required in law”.
Other Green policies include ensuring that Lambeth is not “complicit in the genocide in Gaza”, campaigning to end stop-and-search, and supporting a “public health approach to drugs and knife crime”. …
A Lewisham Green Party spokesman said: “We’ve hit the ground running”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Imagine the future job prospects for those educated in exam-free boroughs.
Employer: “What A-Levels to you have?”
Candidate 1: “An A* in Physics, A in Maths, A in Chemistry.”
Candiate 2: “We didn’t do A-Levels in my school.”
Which would you choose?
For a job in HR? Tricky.
Well, they’ve certainly hit the ground! Actually I think it’s great. All those suicidal empathy believers will now be able to live the dream.
maybe we can create a firewall between green councils and the rest of the country.
in fact we could do with a firewall between illegal gimmigrants and the ready of the country, where they are accommodated in places that support open borders through their council taxes.
Good news: now we know where the incoming enrichment will be welcomed.
Wonder if they have enough luxury hotels?
I repeat my previous assertion, the Green Party are honest about it, the main parties are habitually lying.
That’s right. The Greens are planning to sabotage things that have already been repeatedly sabotaged.
Ah. Equality of outcomes: No A-levels for anyone in the boroughs.
As they disapprove of exams they can put out leaflets encouraging kids to refuse to be part of the system and boycott them out of solidarity with the thickos who would fail anyway.
Or perhaps this is their way of re-invigorating private schools?
All passengers will be reassured to know that their pilots have never been subjected to any high stakes formal testing, so please sit back and enjoy the flight.
…any passengers injured during the inevitable landing or sea-ing will be treated by our company doctor who also has not been stressed in any way with any formal testing.
“Death’s too good for ’em”, to quote the dead Douglas Adams.
Appeal directly to the children. Classic sign of a totalitarian regime.
Socialism is the ideology to accomplish the triumph of mediocrity over merit.
Every socialist policy basically seeks to elevate the mediocre over the valuable.
No exams, so the mediocre can be elevated to the level of the accomplished.
No border control so the meritless can come to Britain.
Etc.
You can see this insidious principle in every socialist policy.
It is truly the cancer of civilisation.
It’s aim is to destroy prosperous, cohesive, stable society in order to prove “capitalism” doesn’t work, eliminate the competition so it’s ghastly ideology can have a free run at replacing it and usher in the age of Utopia.
That it fails always is because: not done properly; not tried for long enough; not enough money spent on it; undermined by evil capitalists.
Socialism like climate change/crisis/emergency/breakdown is the perfect infalsifiable theory. Come to think of it, Climatism = Socialism.
Let the socialists have their next hip/knee operation done by someone who hasn’t passed any exams, but who ‘fancies a go’. That might bring them to their senses, but then again….
The “vires” of public bodies and tax payer funded ones (“charities”) should be strictly limited in law. No more of this sort of campaigning at council tax payers’ expense. No more drift in the nature of actiovities.
Whether local councils adopting Net Zero Policies, Nuclear Free Zones or the National Trust engaging more enthusiastically with woke social objectives than historical preservation and presentation, that all has to stop.
My estimate of the budgetary consequences: a large saving to the public purse and a lot of needy leftists looking for work.
Yes – ideally I would like to see a new agreement about the scope of local and national government activities and what tax revenue can be spent on, enshrined in a law that is difficult to change.
I don’t mind if parliament changes a law. The government can then be held to account for its decisions. I’d object if the law simply delegated the regulation to some un-elected quango. If it’s (quasi-)autonomous then it’s out of control of the government.
I think most taxation is immoral and cannot be justified by “democracy” as it currently exists (or not). It should be limited to provision of non excludable services that it makes sense for the state to provide or procure and manage. I think taxation for a given purpose can only be morally justified if there is an overwhelming majority who are happy with that purpose. The state is there to serve us and not the other way around. The legislature in the US is limited by the constitution – I think the framers didn’t really imagine the bollocks that tax money would be spent on otherwise I think they’d have been less sloppy with the “for the common good” wording.
No ‘charities’ should be funded by any branch of government. I’d water that down slightly and tolerate central government making gifts to other states for natural disaster relief. If the receiving state is blatantly corrupt then no gift if/when there’s a next time.
All government money eventually comes from taxation. Either past taxes saved or invested, current taxes or future taxes through borrowing. It’s the people’s money.
The gift aid system is nuts: The government takes taxes but then gives some back to organisations that it approves of (ie which somehow qualify as ‘charities’) – just stop taking so much in the first place. The more transactions that are involved and the more clerk’s hands the money passes through, the less efficient the system.
Good. It’s what the crazies voted for.
A Lewisham Green Party spokesman meant: “We’ve hit the ground ruining”.