Note to mods: I normally don’t editorialise headlines, but I have in this case because it’s definitely not true!
Your editorialised headline makes an article about Islington into a sweeping claim about the green party.
Might as well read Labor’s own article on the topic: https://islington-labour.org.uk/green-party-highlights-their-own-hypocrisy-in-the-tribune/
Thanks for finding the original letter!
However, I disagree: the headline claim is frequently true of the Green party in general. In addition to their opposition to HS2, Green councillors have successfully prevented construction of solar farms in various parts of the country, objected to building pylons for wind farms in Suffolk, and opposed housing development in Bristol and elsewhere. I feel they basically have a tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that’s reflected in their policies in Islington.
But they’ve got an even more devastating line. A leaflet circulated in recent months in Tufnell Park, they claim (the Greens say the leaflet was not an official party publication and does not represent their views), which said the following: ‘The more privately owned units come onto the property market, the greater the negative impact will be on the value of our flats.’
The entire second half of this article is attacking the Greens for a leaflet that wasn’t even written by a member of the party. This is frankly dishonest, and editing in a short aside about this not being official communications after the fact is hardly being fair.
That may be true, but all we have at the moment is one person saying that it was by a member, and another saying it wasn’t. Until someone produces the email or names the author, I dn’t know either way.
If the email in question is not from a Green in any sense, I agree that the article should be amended to reflect that!
Yeah, until the evidence is public, this is just going to be he said, she said.
What a terrible article. Just ranting with nothing to back it up.
This is untrue, anyone who reads the article will see that it is untrue, and this makes me wonder why you would say it. It even gives the Green’s side of the argument!
Makes sense a news publication owned by a right wing think tank would publish something like this.
Is there anything in the actual content you think is inaccurate?
