I'm aware you are replying to a lot of people and I don't want to come across as part of a pile-up, but the arguments I have seen against the motion still (all) resolutely rejected Zionism and (almost all) expressly said it is indeed racism. Caroline Lucas' for instance.

I think both sides of the debate within the Green Party agreed that Zionism is racism - the argument was over whether the need to actually call that out outweighs that potential hurt to the party.

It might have been possible to craft a motion that passed unanimously (and opponents of the motion don't seem to have disagreed with the proposition that Zionism is racism, just whether you can say that).

But do you really think the external reaction to any such motion would have differed?

I don't think it's ironic at all. Not just Likud but almost the whole of Israeli politics being implacably opposed to Palestinian statehood, is a one of the things that has so profoundly delegitimised Israel and made ZIR a mainstream view. The 2019 election was a key turning point.

Her entire thing is being Keir Starmer. Even now.

It is through purges that you take power. Corbyn never really had power in Labour because he wouldn't purge. Look at John Ashworth remaining on the NEC, or how long McNicol clung on as General Secretary. Starmer won real power by almost immediately purging anyone insufficiently loyal.

Curious phrasing. People who are worried it is illegal are looking at taking legal action?

No isolated, either - several were very quick to aver that Nathan Cofnas' "race realism" would qualify as protected belief.

The idea that the motion would marginalise the Greens is very much a generational one.

The lads banned trans women from Labour Women's Conference. The women are kicking off about it.

It was Labour men who made the decision to ban some Labour women from Labour Women's Conference.

I think a Labour for Trans Rights presence makes perfect sense, because it is a focused pressure group and so would counter LWD. But as a broader-based org and an official affiliate, LGBT+ Labour would send a much more powerful message by joining the boycott.

Monica Lennon was their only hope.

The EA was passed by Labour under Gordon Brown, and became law before 2010 election And Labour today could pass a one-line Bill overturning the Supreme Court's 2025 interpretation of the EA (to restore the original intent and the reading of the Act by the EHRC and successive govts until 2025).

Do these issues really divide Labour's coalition in any meaningful way, or is that just vibes and the opinions (and wishes) of columnists and consultants?

Galloway's decision to run has lead to Chris Williamson, one of four deputy leaders of the WPGB, resigning from the party.

That will follow: three of the managers who (allegedly) covered up for Letby have been charged with manslaughter, they just haven't come to trial yet.

OK. But the things you say are the things they say.