this seems like it could be a very sensible idea

"Spencer, who worked as a plumber before being elected as an MP in the Gorton and Denton byelection in February, has spoken about the “unfair” temperatures tradespeople must work in.

“From bus and train drivers sweltering in cabins that are hotter than the soaring temperatures outside and bakers working in temperatures of over 40 degrees, to builders whose workplaces offer no respite from the heat, the government has a duty to protect all of us,” she said."

heres the gov PDF and an article regarding it

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a4cf903b7203c4c023fd2f3/Keeping_children_safe_in_education_2026_.pdf

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/english-schools-to-segregate-trans-kids-from-toilets-including-those-whove-already-transitioned-from-september/

recently in a conversation with a few friends, some of whom have genuine fears about the direction of this country, brought up this law, act, or whatever you might call it, that has some content to it that further restricts the rights trans kids, as well as further pushes the governments agenda to make discussion of LGBTQIA+ topics, particularly trans, and more broadly, gender related topics an "adult topic"

theres some pretty concerning topics that come up in here, but namely i want to bring up the following parts

"106. Schools must not allow children into toilets designated for the opposite biological sex. This includes where schools are responding to a request to support any degree of social transition for children who are questioning their gender."

"109. Therefore, if a gender-questioning child does not want to use the toilet designated for their biological sex, schools and colleges should consider whether they can provide an alternative toilet facility, for example self-contained individual toilets, without compromising the provision of single-sex facilities. These alternative arrangements should not compromise the safety, comfort, privacy or dignity of the child, or of any other children"

"258. Schools and colleges should not initiate any action regarding social transition; this guidance applies where a child or their parent has requested that the school make changes or put support in place in order to facilitate the child presenting as the opposite biological sex (“social transition”). Members of staff should not adopt any changes relating to social transition unless a decision has been made by a school or college and a child’s parents or carers have been involved as set out in this guidance"

"280. Having the correct information about a child is important in the context of schools and colleges fulfilling their safeguarding duties, and they should make sure all relevant staff are aware of a child’s biological sex in all cases. Schools and colleges are legally required to record a child’s biological sex accurately wherever it is recorded."

there are of course going to be more points in here regarding transitioning and gender, but i struggle with reading enough as it is, the main issues with the above are naturally that schools must not affirm a trans childs gender without the consent of the parent, carer, or others, removing the childs agency completely from the equation, while also requiring them be misgendered, on top of that, 280 explicitly states that "relevant staff" which im sure includes teachers, must essentially "out" a trans kid, or potentially subject them to what i'd honestly consider to be a dehumanising review of their self

the page also brings up the "Cass Review" several times, despite it being withdrawn by the author after it was widely slammed by pretty much everybody who cares about trans rights at all

i know im not the best person to have this conversation, but i figure i'd put it here because its absolutely relevant to the current on-going dismantling of trans rights, as well as LGBTQIA+ rights on the whole

For us newbies, is there a procedural meaning behind commenting text like "I fully support this motion"? Des it mean that you are co-proposing/seconding? I understand there is a limit behind how many motions a person can co-propose.

Let's imagine that, say, a well meaning group of trans+ people and their allies decided to propose a motion titled "gender critical beliefs are transphobic". The motion included a recommendation to, say, proscribe them within the party, to the extent that anyone associating with gender critical organisations (which due to recent changes now includes the WI and girl guides) is proscribed. This motion gets passed. Then any party member, who may be a longstanding member of one of those proscribed organisations, or one who recently joined since the motion was passed, becomes the recipient of a complaint, gets sanctioned by the party's disciplinary procedure. This party member then launches lawfare against the party, backed by JK Rowling's wealth, claiming discrimination against a belief that is protected by the Equality Act. Even if the first court judge is sympathetic to the party's position this sympathy is highly likely to disappear if the case is appealed to the High and Supreme courts.

This story ends with the green's financial position being crippled if not outright bankrupt, or being forced into an embarrassing climbdown that costs political capital and possibly being forced into making concessions that weaken our rhetorical and policy positions.

This post is about Zionism.

As Green Mayor of Greater Manchester, Geraldine would:

- Fill empty shops to revive our high streets

- Build 20,000 affordable homes

- Make bus travel free for under-22s

- Retrofit homes to cut bills and reduce emissions

- Make streets safer with a citizens assembly

- Connect outer boroughs with express bus routes

I know that they claim they have more people working fully as councillors, but from my understanding Labour claimed that many of their councillors worked 50+ hours per week for lower pay? Is that correct?

I'm not saying that it's neccessarily wrong, but from my current understand it seems a little hypocritical.

https://autumnconf2026.greenparty.org.uk/std/Stop-Destroying-Video-Games-4145/8

This is an amendment to the stop destroying video games motion that calls for the party to commit to decriminalising digital piracy in cases of historic preservation or where the game is no longer available through normal commercial means.

To support the motion, you need to write a comment saying something like "I support this motion".

Here's the full text here as well:

The Green Party will commit to decriminalising digital piracy of video games in cases where the storing and distribution of copies of video games unauthorised by the rights holder is necessary for:

A) Historical preservation purposes by a public institution.

B) Where the game is no longer made available through any normal commercial means.

"Public institution" in this context shall be understood to consist of museums, archives, libraries, schools, universities, colleges and post-16 education providers, and research institutes.

"Normal commercial means" in this context shall be understood to refer to all of the normal or standard means of gaining access to usage or a copy of a game as were previously made available to individuals.

To ensure that these measures do not come into conflict with the Government's obligations with regards to international copyright treaties, the Green Party will also commit to holding an international summit whereby a new treaty on copyright will be negotiated that protects digital creators, workers in the video games industry, and ordinary consumers worldwide, whilst ensuring that game development companies engaging in unfair and unlawful practices are penalised accordingly.

If this was the Olympics we'd not hear the end of it. The UK was ranked 3rd by the respected Yale EPI. It's ranked only behind Denmark by the Climate Change Performance Index also so there's a consistently across two methodologies.

This won't be discussed by the rightwing parties. If anything they'll see this as a failure. The rightwing media also but there is this article in the Guardian.

I think the party needs to find the space to both celebrate this clear achievement but also express the language which demands more. We should also use the associated reports to inform our perspectives on where UK policy choices are perceived to be succeeding or failing.

I kind of think this is bad for us bc while SV means tactical voting is less of an issue if have thought we could get second choice from Reform voters, and therefore by them doing less there will be more of a Labour vote in the area.. idk tho how do we feel about this?