The real division in western politics is between the pathological centre and challenge on the so-called “far” left and right ā meaning political forces reasonably enough challenging the centre’s mass death project. Of course, the far right is based upon a con ā its core spaces are dominated by the same billionaire-funded mass death agenda as the centre’s, but the sentiment on the ground is very similar to that on the left.
The point is the level of maturation ā whether these forces are confident enough to separate themselves from the hegemony of the “centre” so that a credible and coherent message can be presented to the electorate that they really are “not them”. As usual, the far right has a big head start.
This requires that the leadership of Left spaces actually believe in themselves. When this happens ā as in the case of Mamdani and Polanski ā then the voter response is dramatic. The Green Party has risen from around 6% to nearly 20% in a year. Of course, this is helped by local factors ā the collapse of Your Party and the tactical incompetence of Labour. But the structural factor is the key determinant ā a political leader who directly addresses the decimation of the cultural and material means of life of the majority under monopoly finance capital. There is the conventional economic wave ā the “internal contradictions of capital” ā and then fusing with the new and final wave: the destruction of the biosphere.
Inadequate maturation of a Left party that promises systemic change is again catastrophically on display in the Green Party’s weak response to the Makerfield by-election. If Zack had believed in his own rhetoric ā that the party is taking over from Labour ā then he would have shown charismatic and strategic leadership and been out there on the streets from day one, making the self-fulfilling prophecy that Labour can never look after the interests of working people, for all the reasons everyone knows.
Instead, like docile peasants in the face of aristocratic charm (i.e. lies), the weight of tradition has again won the day. The myth held that the Left can only go through the motions of opposition to the centre, which has the divine (i.e. neo-liberal) right to rule.
This failure is catastrophic because, as any realist worthy of the label knows, next year the world will hit 1.7°C, and this will signal the end of our civilisation, beginning with the collapse of insurance markets. Think of 2008, then multiply it by 100. Capital in the twenty-first century is the biggest Ponzi scheme in human history. It sells you prosperity while knowing it is destroying the very basis of life. This does not end well.
The far right response will be to double down on denial and ever greater psychotic short-termism, as shown by the present Trump regime. In other words, the far right has only one agenda: treason ā to bring mass death down onto the British people. After all, it only took Hitler twelve years to do this to Germany. It will take about a decade to do the same this time around, but with the truly appalling outcome of the permanent desolation of our country. You cannot “rebuild” without a functioning biosphere.
What the Green Party has to do but won’t do is tell the people of Makerfield that they will die the slow way with Burnham and the fast way with Farage. Both are happy to have AMOC collapse locked in, for example. AMOC collapse means the end of the UK ā no question about it. This is a physical, not a social, situation. You cannot grow potatoes in northern Norway, as one expert put it.
Of course, telling the UK public this “blood, sweat and tears” reality is most likely to fail. Never underestimate the effects of forty years of neo-liberal programming. But that is not the point. The point is that there is an absolute time limit here. There is no more time. We are at 1.5°C and 2°C is locked in (0.5°C, for instance, will be added to global temperatures once the air pollution from stopping burning fossil fuels is removed).
This means it’s now or never. You can jump over the fence and most likely get shot, or you can wait a little longer and be guaranteed to die in the gas chamber, which is the earth’s atmosphere with over 500ppm of COā in it.
Sometimes choices are limited.
Let me finish on a rather British positive note. I recently spoke to a woman who was part of one of the many trials of people who have taken part in civil disobedience with Just Stop Oil. The convention now is that the judge will not allow any evidence relating to the criminality of the elites with regard to carbon emissions. Unsurprisingly, these show trials lead to guilty outcomes from juries. In one of those trials, I was given a five-year prison sentence. For some reason, in her trial, the judge allowed the presentation of evidence, including the “agreed fact” that at 3°C there will be at least 4 billion deaths ā as predicted by a recent major report by the UK insurance industry. These people, we hopefully can all agree, deal in facts.
The jury went out for less than an hour and came back with a not guilty verdict. After all, who wants their kids and grandkids subjected to the equivalent of 80 World Wars Twos in the next two generations? Maybe the good citizens of Makerfield don’t want that fate either. But first, they need Mr Polanski to tell them some of these “agreed facts”.
There is a reason the “blood, sweat and tears” speech is the best-known of the twentieth century. Could it have something to do with being told the truth?
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate

No Comments
This Gabriel’s reply is more rational and practical than the original article. There is a deep reason why alarming facts repeated by Roger don’t have effects one might expect. Massive shift in public consciousness is required, which cannot be achieved by preaching, protests, and even self-immolation. A popularly perceived global disaster has to become emotional, not only intellectual reality. And in order for that to take place, people like Roger, Zack, Jeremy, etc. have to realize it and, make conscious, practical, ideally joined or at least coordinated efforts towards this goal.
We live through a critical historic period, a poly-crisis, of which the climate (and natural degradation in general) is only one factor, albeit the most important from the perspective of the future of human civilization. Unfortunately, evolutionary and, therefore, genetically, we developed in a very different natural and social environment. Therefore, we, as a species, are living through this crisis without full realization (ability and desire to connect the dots) to preserve our sanity and “normal” behavior, which is very human and has always served the evolutionary purpose of preservation of our social life. Unfortunately, it may not work this time.
The most fundamental fault with all the climate change argumentation is that it’s not linked to the direct experience of the population majority, especially in the developed countries, who rarely realize they suffer from its consequences. The majority of climate scientists, who limit their “public activity” by conference speeches, some collective letters and press releases, and poll participation, and the Left do terrible job (if any at all) to establish this link. Unless millions of people feel (not think) the same way as the Extinction Rebellion members apparently do, no significant progress should be expected.
If the Green party were to mount a robust campaign in Makerfield–to take a maximum number of votes from Labour / Andy Burnham–the most likely outcome is a Reform UK win.
But if the Green party stood no candidate at all in Makerfield, then more homeless and angry protest votes would likely go to Reform UK.
Standing a Green candidate in Makerfield–but with minimal campaigning–enables depriving Reform UK of the protest votes it would likely get without any Green candidate to vote for.
While minimal campaigning by Greens also reduces the risk of taking too many votes off the Labour candidate Andy Burnham who most wants electoral reform, AND who could soon be the next UK Prime Minister, replacing Keir Starmer who has no interest in electoral reform.
Burnham wants to introduce (at last) Proportional Representation.
Proportional representation is in the longterm interests of the Green party like nothing else. And foregoing one more possible Green MP by July 2026, by enabling Burnham to win, could instead enable maybe 100+ Green MPs at the next general election held under PR.
And, of course, 100+ Green MPs in a progressive UK coalition government would have a lot of influence on hastening UK Net Zero.
Certainly far greater influence than a handful of Green MPs would have on a Reform UK majority government, elected on a minority 25-30% of the vote, in a general election contested by five parties under First Past The Post.
The only problem is, that Andy Burnham is now talking about electoral reform for “the next government”. And that could be too late, if it’s a Reform UK government.
Because Reform promises to scrap Net Zero and encourage more gas and oil drilling in the North Sea–which of course would not give us “energy security” as oil & gas are sold on world markets. But most Reform voters won’t know that.
I joined the Ecology party in 1985–six months before it changed its name to the Green party. Been campaigning for proportional representation for a long, long time.
If the Green party were to mount a robust campaign in Makerfield–to take a maximum number of votes from Labour / Andy Burnham–the most likely outcome is a Reform UK win.
But if the Green party stood no candidate at all in Makerfield, then more homeless and angry protest votes would likely go to Reform UK.
Standing a Green candidate in Makerfield–but with minimal campaigning–enables depriving Reform UK of the protest votes it would likely get without any Green candidate to vote for.
While minimal campaigning by Greens also reduces the risk of taking too many votes off the Labour candidate Andy Burnham who most wants electoral reform, AND who could soon be the next UK Prime Minister, replacing Keir Starmer who has no interest in electoral reform.
Burnham wants to introduce (at last) Proportional Representation.
Proportional representation is in the longterm interests of the Green party like nothing else. And foregoing one more possible Green MP by July 2026, by enabling Burnham to win, could instead enable maybe 100+ Green MPs at the next general election held under PR.
And, of course, 100+ Green MPs in a progressive UK coalition government would have a lot of influence on hastening UK Net Zero.
Certainly far greater influence than a handful of Green MPs would have on a Reform UK majority government, elected on a minority 25-30% of the vote, in a general election contested by five parties under First Past The Post.
The only problem is, that Andy Burnham is now talking about electoral reform for “the next government”. And that could be too late, if it’s a Reform UK government.
Because Reform promises to scrap Net Zero and encourage more gas and oil drilling in the North Sea–which of course would not give us “energy security” as oil & gas are sold on world markets. But most Reform voters won’t know that.
I joined the Ecology party in 1985–six months before it changed its name to the Green party. Been campaigning for proportional representation for a long, long time.