WeeklyWorker

04.06.2026
Carla Denyer and Zack Polanski: realo and fundie ... but the nearer to office, the greater the capitalist realist pull

Our flag stays red

In terms of origins, the Green Party is unmistakably the progeny of far-right politics. Nowadays, though, it passes as leftwing. But that does not make it socialist, let alone revolutionary, argues Jack Conrad

Common sense on the soggy left takes it for granted that reds and greens are natural allies: greens are thought of as nice, progressive, sensible, like-minded folk. But, in fact, as an ideological current, greenism has many shades, many rooms, many schools of thought, ranging from the utopian left to the far right. There are anarchist greens, there are reformist greens, there are liberal greens, there are business-friendly NGO greens, there are fascist greens of the Jorian Jenks and Walther Darre type. Hell, today, we even have a Green King.

To get a handle on Charles Windsor’s particular version of greenism you can do no better than pick up a copy of his co-authored book, Harmony.1 HRH begins boldly by declaring: “This is a call to revolution.” Against what? Well, nothing less than “the current orthodoxy and conventional way of thinking, much of it stemming from the 1960s, but with its origins going back over 200 years”.2 A barely concealed call for the counterrevolutionary restoration of feudalism.

Belief that western civilisation took a wrong turn with the Enlightenment is common coin amongst rightwing conservatives. Take Roger Scruton (1944-2020). He invented the term oikophobia - oiko being Greek for home - to damn those who repudiate traditional notions of home, family and country. Scruton singled out, in particular, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky for opprobrium. He urged “environmentalists and conservatives” to make “common cause” around “territory” - in particular its “strongest political expression”, the “nation-state”.3

Not an original idea. In October 1988 Margaret Thatcher made her famous ‘green’ conference speech: “No generation has a freehold on this Earth. All we have is a life tenancy - with full repairing lease.”4 The Countryside Alliance also comes to mind. Still claiming over 100,000 members, this ermine-led campaign aims to protect and promote the interests of rural Britain: farming, fishing, fox hunting … and making Brexit work.5

Indeed, ever since industrial capitalism rose to dominance there has been a strand of Tory thought which has sought to defend so-called traditional ways against the flood tide of utilitarian liberalism and republican democracy. Eg, Young England during the early 1840s.

Born on the playing fields of Eton and Rugby, Oxford and Cambridge, it loosely grouped together a blue-blooded membership: George Smythe, Lord John Manners, Henry Hope, Alexander Baillie Cochrane, but most notably, its figurehead and leader, Benjamin Disraeli (who was no aristocrat, nor did he attend Eton).6

To gain a wider audience these gentlemen feigned an indifference to their own specific class interests. Nostalgically they advocated a rural idyll of snug hamlets, independent artisans, upstanding yeomen farmers, benevolent Christian alms-giving and absolute monarchy. Everyone has their place and everyone knows their place: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate”.

Dreamy poems and didactic novels lauding a mainly fabricated past went hand in hand with eviscerating attacks on rapacious industrialists, who heartlessly exploited their workers, rode roughshod over family values and inadvertently fuelled the danger of revolution. Young England had not the least interest in nor wish for democracy. But they wanted to rouse the masses: that way they sought to restore the power of landed wealth and put an end to the “madness” of Chartism (Thomas Carlyle).7

Charles Windsor very much stands in this Young England tradition. In the name of “generations yet unborn”, he told world leaders gathered at Cop26, meeting in Glasgow in November 2021, that we “have to put ourselves on what might be called a war footing”. However, the “vast military-style campaign” that his royal greenness advocated was designed to engage with the “global private sector”, not subordinate it to state power (so no ‘climate socialism’ as of yet).8

Cross-class

Undaunted, Anticapitalist Resistance says it wants “working alliances with green activists”, which would “help efforts to make the green movement more [sic] anti-capitalist”.9 An approach that effectively plagiarises Eurocommunism in its 1990s dotage.10 And there are always those determined to reinvent the square wheel. James Schneider’s Our bloc similarly advocates a left federation of “social movements, trade unions, the Labour grassroots and socialists in parliament”.11 He has also suggested running joint open primaries with the Greens. There is too Chantal Mouffe, with her “chain of equivalence”. She envisages bringing together reds and greens against the neoliberal consensus.12

Not a few in and around Your Party’s left have bought into the perspective. Typical is the article written jointly by Candi Williams and Anahita Zardoshti. Its title says it all: ‘The Green Party is great, but it’s not enough’.13 What is “great” about the Green Party goes entirely unexplored.

Apparently, though, some greens are “using the word ‘socialist’”. Doubtless there are some socialist greens (not least those who have decamped from Your Party). However, that is certainly not the case with the official Green Party. What features in its manifestos, election addresses and conference resolutions is the usual ‘social justice,’ ‘environmental justice’ and creating a ‘fairer society’ goop. Nonetheless, the operative conclusion of Williams and Zardoshti is exactly the same as ACR: popular frontist, cross-class politics.

In essence, the Socialist Party in England and Wales is no different. The Socialist, in an editorial, wanted the Greens “invited to affiliate” by Your Party.14 An outrageous suggestion, not because of the sure-fire certainty that, if ever made, any such invitation would be flatly rejected. After all, the Greens boast of being on track to get 30 MPs at the next general election and wanting to “replace the Labour Party”.15 No, what is politically outrageous is the suggestion itself.

Class lines are abandoned, forgotten or rejected … and in pursuit of what? A Labour Party mark two, a cross-class, federal party and the forlorn hope of SPEW receiving an official YP invitation to affiliate!16 Such a thoroughly misconceived strategy - and that is what it is - inevitably culminates in paying no more than lip service to establishing “an independent working class party”.17 That is, sadly, what the much vaunted ‘transitional method’ amounts to in practice. Paradoxically, tactics become all.18

By the by, editorials in The Socialist must be regarded as authoritative statements on behalf of SPEW (which, of course, publishes, finances and tightly controls the paper). Perhaps the final edit was done by the ‘newspaper team’ (six HQ-based full-timers). But, whoever actually wrote the damned piece advocating affiliation, prime responsibility for what is class treachery must be placed on SPEW’s leadership as a whole.19 And class treachery it is: after all, for good reason, as The Socialist says, the “Greens are not a party rooted in or emanating from the workers’ movement … The party also - consciously - does not have a socialist ideology, a vision of an alternative system to capitalism.”

Roots

So what traditions are greens rooted in and what movement do they emanate from?

There are greens who take fiery inspiration from the likes of William Blake, Mary Shelly, Karl Marx, William Morris and Peter Kropotkin. People such as Derek Wall and the Association of Socialist Greens and Green Left come to mind. Others prefer the milder flavours of St Francis of Assisi, Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.

But none of that can be said of the official Green Party. By tradition it is firmly rooted in Young England conservatism and the overpopulation theories of the reverend Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) … especially as updated by Paul R Ehrlich.

In The population bomb (1968), Ehrlich - a Stanford University entomologist - depicts the planet as drowning under “too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticides, multiplying contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide” all of which can be “traced easily to too many people”.20

Looking forward just a little, to the 1970s and 80s, he apocalyptically announced: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.”21 Instead of giving aid to the needy and feeding the hungry, responsible states should henceforth put in place the harsh population control measures needed.

Ehrlich equated this, admittedly unpleasant, task with cutting out a “cancer”.22 The operation will “demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance of survival.”23 Surely a barely concealed call for the mass extermination of the surplus population - considered globally, that means the poor and destitute in the so-called third world. Accusations of unintended racism appear more than justified. Expropriating the kleptocrats, the tech bros, the giant corporations, the parasitic royal houses, the banks, insurance companies and private equity funds never seems to occur.

The population bomb served as an antidote to the spirit of ’68. After a slow burn, Ehrlich’s book not only became a media-celebrated best-seller: it spurred on what became an anti-population growth crusade. Millions were sterilised, often coercively, in countries such as India, Mexico, Peru, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia and Bangladesh - all backed, promoted and urged on by the UN, the World Bank and a swathe of NGOs. And, of course, between 1980 and 2015 China imposed its own draconian one-child policy.

Optimum Population Trust was founded in Britain in 1991 and rebranded as Population Matters in 2011. Its website displays a “world population clock” ticking away (presumably towards the final moment of ecological collapse).24 A thoroughly respectable pressure group, it makes the case for putting population reduction at the heart of government policy. Britain should, it submitted, reduce its numbers to 30 million by 2130 - about the same level as 1870 (nowadays, of course, the far right worries over declining birth rates - well, the birth rates of their preferred kind of people).

Not so long ago the Green Party too prescribed a similar human purgative - except down to 20 million!25 True, the Green Party’s neo-Malthusianism has been somewhat sugar-coated; likewise Population Matters. Under the banner of living in harmony with nature, it advocates empowering women and girls, quality education for all, free contraception and reversing foreign aid cuts.

But the truth will out. In 2013, Population Matters strenuously objected to Syrian refugees being granted asylum in the UK.26 The organisation stands for zero net migration. Nonetheless, worthy public figures lined up to endorse the organisation - apart from Paul Ehrlich himself, Sir David Attenborough, Jonathon Porritt, Sir Partha Dasgupta, Jane Goodall, John Guillebaud, Leilani Münter, Lionel Shriver and Chris Packham.27 Sons and daughters of the reverend all.

Inevitably, however, if voluntary methods fail, then other, involuntary solutions present themselves … and the danger is that sooner or later such other methods will come to be accepted as commonsensical: Population Matters boasts that an international opinion survey conducted in February 2019 found that two thirds of respondents consider “population growth a global catastrophic risk”.28 Clearly, you can fool most of the people some of the time.

In The population bomb, Ehrlich was quite explicit: “We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” He toyed with the idea of lacing food sold in the US with contraceptives. After rejecting this as politically unfeasible, he advocated ending US food aid to countries abroad. And, he added, almost as an afterthought, that all men in India with “over three children” should be “forcibly sterilised”.29

Very much in that Malthusian spirit, in January 1972, Edward Goldsmith - uncle of Zac Goldsmith, the green Tory peer - published ‘A blueprint for survival’ in his magazine, The Ecologist. Shortly thereafter issued in book form by Penguin, it sold 750,000 copies.

Goldsmith and fellow author, Robert Allen, have, unfairly, been described as “blackshirts with green welly boots”. Why unfairly? Simply because they had no intention of forming extra-state fighting formations. Either way, they argued for cutting the British population by 50%, repatriating immigrants, small-scale farms, tight-knit communities, living in harmony with nature, establishing a social order based on the patriarchal family and something resembling the Indian caste system.30

No obscure, cranky schema invented by a couple of upper class eccentrics. On the contrary, Blueprint for survival provided the meat and potatoes for Michael Benfield, Freda Sanders, Tony Whittaker and Lesley Whittaker, when they established the PEOPLE party in November 1972. These impeccably respectable professionals - surveyor, property agent and solicitors - framed their policies on agriculture, self-employment, national defence, land tenure, communities, reducing fossil fuel consumption and curbing pollution within a 100-year perspective of zero-growth and sub-population replacement.

After its first conference, attended by roughly 70 members, PEOPLE published its 32-page ‘Manifesto for survival’ in June 1974.31 PEOPLE subsequently stood five candidates in the October 1974 general election securing between 0.51% and 1.28% of the vote.32 Goldsmith then merged his Movement for Survival with PEOPLE and became one of its leading figures. A year later, in 1975, it morphed into the Ecology Party and 10 years after that the Green Party (UK).33

Faultline

The Green Party has moved far away from the far-right conservatism of those days. Yes, there was David Icke, the former footballer and BBC sports presenter. He almost instantly became one of the Green Party’s leading spokespersons in the 1980s - till, that is, he resigned in March 1991. A month later he announced to a packed media conference that he was the son of the Godhead.34

Nowadays though, the main faultline at conferences and in leadership contests runs between centrist realos and leftish fundies. As a result there were more than a few commendable democratic demands contained in the June 2017 general election manifesto of the Green Party (England and Wales): scrapping Trident; a citizen army; withdrawal from Nato; replacing the monarchy with a republic; proportional representation for local and parliamentary elections.35

Positions well to the left of Labour’s “socialist” For the many, not the few. Hence rightwing accusations that the Green Party is a ‘watermelon party’: green on the outside, red on the inside. A nice joke, but, in fact, even under Natalie Bennett, Green Party perspectives remained firmly located within the narrow confines of existing society. Wage slavery is, for example, taken for granted.

While it proposes to tinker with the constitution, GPEW is, in fact, a thoroughly loyalist party constitutionally. It accepts the so-called ‘rule of law’ and therefore the capitalist state machine: the courts, the civil service, the police, the armed forces, etc. There is, certainly, no equals signs between GPEW and the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party which joined the Bolshevik government headed by Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, etc, in late November 1917. The Left SRs were, note, the majority party of the peasantry in Russia and, as their name suggests, were committed to both the revolutionary overthrow of the landlord-capitalist classes and a socialism. The Bolshevik-LSR coalition was therefore red-red.

In practice, the Green Party is committed to the survival of capitalism through urging legislation against polluting industries, promoting recycling, championing wind farms and solar panels, maintaining commitments to meeting net zero CO2 emission targets, etc. Not that talking the talk and walking the walk are synonymous. Proved in miniature with neoliberal Brighton and Hove: “a ‘Green’ council in name only”.36

The Green Party leaderships of Caroline Lucas, Johnathan Bartley, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay swung the pendulum in the direction of the realos. They wanted GPEW to be a “serious electoral force”.37 Here “serious” should be understood not merely as increasing votes, councillors, mayors and MPs. It means being a politically acceptable junior coalition partner, like Greens in other European countries … and, therefore, if given the chance, responsible administrators of, not fighters against, capitalism.

Their role model is Germany’s Joschka Fischer. Once an incendiary leader of the ultra-left Putzgruppe in the early 1970s (they fought riot police using clubs, bricks and molotov cocktails), Fischer soon ‘matured’, going on to serve as the green foreign minister and vice-chancellor in Gerhard Schröder’s 1998-2005 coalition. Inevitably, he backed the Bundeswehr joining Nato’s Balkans intervention in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001.

In that realo spirit, the Green Party’s republic, Nato withdrawal and popular militia were dumped or left to slowly gather dust - a passing childish phase. Instead GPEW leaders present themselves as buyable - open, that is, to the same institutional corruption that routinely sees fire-breathing politicians turned into pliant servants of capital (barely remarked upon by the mainstream media). Note: the Green Party-backed Republic in Parliament Campaign has been officially “closed”.38

To leave not a shadow of doubt about her state loyalism, Caroline Lucas (never much of a fire-breather) ensured that the Greens adopted the “very clear” International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s so-called ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism.39 Code for restricting free speech, witch-hunting anti-Zionists and siding not only with the racist Israeli colonial-settler project, but the US-dominated world order.

Polanskism

Of course, since then we have had the election of Zack Polanski. Yes, a political shapeshifter. One day he is a “strong Zionist”, the next “certainly not a Zionist”; one day he is a Liberal Democrat, the next a Green; one day he accuses the Labour left of being rife with anti-Semitism, the next he apologises for the slur.

Nonetheless, with him the Greens have undergone a redwashing. He highlights the cost of living crisis, talks about workers’ rights, castigates growing inequality, and even toys with reinstating opposition to Nato. Hence today the Greens are definitely reddish on the outside: something which persuaded Socialist Worker to issue a rather opaque call for a Green vote in English council elections and elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments on May 7 this year in a wonderfully titled editorial: ‘Will Greens stay red?’40

When it comes to numbers, Polanski’s leadership has been transformational. Membership surged from some 68,000 in late 2025 to around 216,000 in mid-2026.41 There was too Hannah Spencer’s stunning by-election victory in Gorton and Denton. And latest polls put the Greens on 14.4% (ahead of the Lib Dems and just behind the Tories42). According to psephologists, that mass base is disproportionately young, student, female, well-educated and renting.43 So we are talking about proletarianized professionals.

Programmatically, however, the Green Party remains unmistakably a petty bourgeois party, which wants to reform capitalism in the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. As a matter of pride the underlying ethos is local, not global. Small businesses, mutuals, home and self-employment are upheld as an ideal. Meanwhile, in the imagination, a remoulded banking system will provide them with “cheap basic” services and lend “locally”. So finance capital is reined in, but continues, albeit in a severely diminished form. Essentially the same happens with industrial capital.

However, by its very nature small capital drives towards becoming bigger and bigger capital. Unless it is limited to ‘simple commodity production’ - ie, C-M-C (an abstraction) - that is inevitable. Small capital is locked into the same M-C-M’ cycle as big capital. Production is not about satisfying needs: it is about making more and more money. Failure to do that on a sufficient scale is to risk bankruptcy or takeover.

Demonstrably, green British capital cannot compete, especially with big foreign capital, on equal terms. It needs subsidies, it needs protection, it needs beneficial legislation, it needs the state. And that legitimises the realism of green politicians … and makes them the target of the disinterested generosity of green capital. Already there are a few biggish donors.44 But, the more MPs and the nearer to coalition politics they come, those “no strings” donations become an organisational necessity needed to keep the show on the tracks. Media handlers, executive officers, talented researchers, political consultancies, advertising agencies, etc, do not come cheap.

Note, in 2021, Germany’s greens “received more large donations than Angela Merkel’s party”.45 In government from 2021 to 2024, they distinguished themselves from their social democratic and free democrat partners by their militarism, greenwashing and neoliberalism. They unconditionally supported the Israeli war in Gaza. Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock and green vice-chancellor Robert Habeck even rejected calls for a “humanitarian ceasefire”.46 When it came to Nato’s proxy war in Ukraine, Germany’s greens spearheaded demands for the delivery of heavy weapons … and escalation.

So you can see why ACR wants a so-called red-green alliance in today’s Britain.

Imagine

For one moment then, imagine that Zack Polanski is called to Buckingham Palace. The Green Party has won a convincing enough general election victory. In front of serried microphones and countless camera crews, Zack Polanski ostentatiously arrives by bicycle. Still sweating somewhat, he is escorted by blank-faced courtiers, dressed in full court uniform, to the Audience Room.

After a little polite chit-chat, William V formally asks him to form a government and Zack Polanski humbly accepts: the ‘kissing of hands’. The two say their goodbyes and Zack Polanski does an awkward bow. He leaves Buckingham Palace as prime minister in a black, heavily armoured Audi A8 saloon, along with his two protection officers and an accompanying motorcade, before entering No10 to the cheers of an ecstatic crowd.

An unlikely scenario, admittedly, but a useful thought experiment. For the sake of argument, then, we shall put aside a joint chiefs of staff mutiny, MI5 black ops, CIA pushback, invasion threats, crippling sanctions, naval blockades and a US-sponsored nationalist break-up of Britain.

The Zack Polanski government successfully pushes through parliamentary legislation transforming banking giants, such as Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest, into purely domestic concerns. However, well before the third reading and the granting of royal assent, the CEOs of Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest have already ended their listing on the London Stock Exchange and transferred their main operations to New York, Frankfurt and Paris.

Executives, senior investment bankers, front-line dealers and traders likewise make tracks. With their remuneration packages being well in excess of £10 million, Zack Polanski’s government suffers a huge hit with their departure. Tax revenues shrink dramatically. There is, too, the banking ecosystem. Giant banks are responsible for generating vast amounts of business for lawyers, accountants, IT consultants and PR firms. That comes to a shuddering halt.

Meanwhile there is a massive exodus of hot money from the City. Zack Polanski’s government imposes strict controls on the movement of capital. But it is too late. Share prices crater, interest rates rocket. There is a run on the pound on international markets.

Zack Polanski’s government is also determined to downsize the UK branches of transnationals. That, if it were possible, might see the shutters come down on the British operations of companies such as AstraZeneca, BP, Ford, BMW, Tata, Honda and Airbus. Either way, say the likes of AstraZeneca, BP, Ford, BMW, Tata, Honda and Airbus continue in the UK, there could only but be a severe drop in labour productivity.

With what result? Steeply rising costs. Production thereby tends to become unprofitable. Unemployment therefore soars. Welfare payments become ever harder to sustain - what with falling government revenues and rising borrowing costs.

Shortages grip. Some turn to growing their own food in desperation. Many fall into debt. Mortgages and rents go unpaid. Evictions assume epidemic proportions. People occupy vacant properties. Black and grey markets appear. Corrupt fortunes are made by well-connected Green Party members. Other Green Party members find themselves in danger of going bust. Their businesses relied on importing what were once cheap goods: now they are prohibitively expensive.

Social tensions reach boiling point. Wildcat strikes rip. Riots erupt. Those with marketable skills flee abroad. Zack Polanski’s government thereby faces an unenviable choice: either impose a police state, prevent valuable people leaving the country, screw up rates of exploitation and administer poverty through rationing; that or abandon the Green Party’s manifesto commitments.

Seemingly unfazed, the Zack Polanski government breezily continues to promise: “everyone” will “live happier and more secure lives”; “everyone” will have an income “above subsistence level”; there will be “an environment where everyone feels fulfilled in worthwhile employment”; and “everyone” will have “access to healthy, nutritious, locally grown food”.47

Greenism as manifest self-deception.

  1. Downloadable as a pdf from: sufipathoflove.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/harmony_.pdf. That or pick it up for a quid or two from any charity shop.↩︎

  2. HRH Charles, T Juniper and I Skelly Harmony: a new way of looking at our world London 2010, p3.↩︎

  3. R Scruton How to seriously think about saving the planet Oxford 2012, p19.↩︎

  4. R Harris (ed) The collected speeches of Margaret Thatcher London 1997, p341.↩︎

  5. No actual membership figures are published nowadays, suggesting, for the moment at least, that it is something of a heritage organisation.↩︎

  6. See J Morrow (ed) Young England Leicester 1999.↩︎

  7. T Carlyle Chartism London 1840, p4.↩︎

  8. news.sky.com/story/cop26-prince-charles-tells-g20-world-leaders-thefuture-of-humanity-and-nature-herself-are-at-stake-12456102.↩︎

  9. Anticapitalist statement: ‘Why we back the Greens in Gorton and Denton by-election’, February 5 2026 - anticapitalistresistance.org/why-we-back-a-green-in-gorton-and-denton-by-election.↩︎

  10. See Manifesto for new time London 1990, pp53-56.↩︎

  11. D Schneider Our bloc: how we win London 2022, p5.↩︎

  12. C Mouffe Towards a green democratic revolution London 2022, pp43-47.↩︎

  13. novaramedia.com/2026/02/03/the-green-party-is-great-but-its-not-enough.↩︎

  14. ‘What we think’ The Socialist September 11-17 2025.↩︎

  15. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0d0d08jnjo.↩︎

  16. Why is SPEW obsessed with federalism? Psychoanalysis might possibly suggest that the answer lies in a collective desire to return to the comforting womb of Labourism ... and, as the Labour Party itself is now, wrongly, spurned as just another capitalist party, we have the repetitive, obsessive and self-destructive commitment to various ‘Labour Party mark two’ projects and elevating federalism into a cardinal principle (See S Freud Beyond the pleasure principle London 1961). Not that we would propose a course of therapeutic treatment. No, we would urge comrades to study, openly rebel and join us in the struggle for a mass Communist Party.↩︎

  17. See C Joyce ‘Trotsky’s transitional method: how to win workers and youth for socialism?’ (www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/121337/21-02-2024/trotskys-transitional-method-how-to-win-workers-and-youth-for-socialism).↩︎

  18. For the last of my many critiques of the so-called ‘transitional method’ see ‘Programmatic starting point’ Weekly Worker February 27 2025 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1527/programmatic-starting-point).↩︎

  19. Gensec Hannah Sell and SPEW’s exec should definitely not escape blame. We are told, after all, that the “editorial team works closely with the executive committee of the Socialist Party and others at the national centre to check the content of articles when necessary” (www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/27528/20-06-2018/how-do-we-produce-the-socialist). One presumes that includes editorials on the Greens and YP.↩︎

  20. P Ehrlich The population bomb New York NY 1969, pp66-67.↩︎

  21. Ibid pxi.↩︎

  22. Ibid pxi.↩︎

  23. Ibid pp166-67.↩︎

  24. populationmatters.org/the-facts.↩︎

  25. ‘Greens propose 20 million cut in population’ The Guardian September 18 1989.↩︎

  26. Open Democracy September 23 2016.↩︎

  27. populationmatters.org/our-patrons. This was as of 2023, since then there have been a few deaths, not least that of Ehrlich himself.↩︎

  28. Population Matters annual report, July 2018-June 2019, p9 (populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/191126%20hyperlinked%20AR%20Population%20Matters%20AR%202018_19_ONLINE_final.pdf).↩︎

  29. P Ehrlich The population bomb New York NY 1969, pxi.↩︎

  30. See E Goldsmith and R Allen A blueprint for survival Harmondsworth 1972.↩︎

  31. green-history.uk/j3/library/doc-archive/file/25-dt0047-peoplemanifestoforsurvival1974.↩︎

  32. Ibid.↩︎

  33. D Wall The no-nonsense guide to green politics Oxford 2010, p16.↩︎

  34. The Guardian March 28 1991.↩︎

  35. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40003019.↩︎

  36. www.brightonandhovenews.org/2021/06/06/evidence-suggests-that-its-a-green-council-in-name-only.↩︎

  37. My emphasis - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58761003.↩︎

  38. www.indiegogo.com/projects/republic-in-parliament-campaign.↩︎

  39. electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/uk-green-mp-stops-motion-against-bogus-anti-semitism-definition.↩︎

  40. Socialist Worker April 29 2026.↩︎

  41. greenpartytracker.co.uk.↩︎

  42. www.pollcheck.co.uk/polls/green-party.↩︎

  43. yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election.↩︎

  44. donation.watch/en/unitedkingdom/party/GPEW/donors.↩︎

  45. The Guardian September 7 2021.↩︎

  46. www.theleftberlin.com/greens-germany-neoliberal.↩︎

  47. www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Elections/Green Party Manifesto 2019.pdf.↩︎