Siobhán Sarelle 🏳️⚧️
@siobhansarelle.com
50 year old multi instrumentalist musician, singer, improviser.
Trans, queer, AuDHD, vegan.
Green, Anarcho Emotionalist, antifascist
Lived experience with trauma, intensive therapy.
Working class background.
She/her
Trans, queer, AuDHD, vegan.
Green, Anarcho Emotionalist, antifascist
Lived experience with trauma, intensive therapy.
Working class background.
She/her
Pinned
The amount of insipid, wishy-washy defence of Keir Starmer, is mildly irritating at best.
There’s the “Hey look over there! Farage/Trump!” defence.
You know, people can scrutinise more than one thing at a time, right?
Then there’s “well at least he quickly apologised”
Oops soz my bad.
There’s the “Hey look over there! Farage/Trump!” defence.
You know, people can scrutinise more than one thing at a time, right?
Then there’s “well at least he quickly apologised”
Oops soz my bad.
February 6, 2026 at 9:41 AM
The amount of insipid, wishy-washy defence of Keir Starmer, is mildly irritating at best.
There’s the “Hey look over there! Farage/Trump!” defence.
You know, people can scrutinise more than one thing at a time, right?
Then there’s “well at least he quickly apologised”
Oops soz my bad.
There’s the “Hey look over there! Farage/Trump!” defence.
You know, people can scrutinise more than one thing at a time, right?
Then there’s “well at least he quickly apologised”
Oops soz my bad.
With a bit of luck, it’ll turn out that The BBC’s plan was always to put Reform on so much that everyone complains and they completely stop and ignore them totally ignore them coming up to the next elections.
February 5, 2026 at 10:55 PM
With a bit of luck, it’ll turn out that The BBC’s plan was always to put Reform on so much that everyone complains and they completely stop and ignore them totally ignore them coming up to the next elections.
If Starmer has stated that Mandelson lied to him, then he’s effectively stated that Mandelson lied to the Intelligence Services, or that the Intelligence Services didn’t do a good enough job.
Also noted that Mandelson was made Lord President of the (Privy) Council, I think after resigning twice.
Also noted that Mandelson was made Lord President of the (Privy) Council, I think after resigning twice.
February 5, 2026 at 10:27 PM
If Starmer has stated that Mandelson lied to him, then he’s effectively stated that Mandelson lied to the Intelligence Services, or that the Intelligence Services didn’t do a good enough job.
Also noted that Mandelson was made Lord President of the (Privy) Council, I think after resigning twice.
Also noted that Mandelson was made Lord President of the (Privy) Council, I think after resigning twice.
I’m not a fan of Starmer, but…
Wait.. there’s a “but”?!
Wait.. there’s a “but”?!
February 5, 2026 at 9:08 PM
I’m not a fan of Starmer, but…
Wait.. there’s a “but”?!
Wait.. there’s a “but”?!
Starmer: I’d like to put forward Peter Mandelson to be the new UK ambassador to the United States
British Intelligence Services: Peter who? Sure yeah, sounds fine.
British Intelligence Services: Peter who? Sure yeah, sounds fine.
February 5, 2026 at 8:50 PM
Starmer: I’d like to put forward Peter Mandelson to be the new UK ambassador to the United States
British Intelligence Services: Peter who? Sure yeah, sounds fine.
British Intelligence Services: Peter who? Sure yeah, sounds fine.
To be honest, I didn’t call for Keir Starmer to resign when he appointed Peter Mandelson (again), because the thought “Peter Mandelson? WTF? Really?! Are you insane..” just kinda whizzed past me and got lost among all the other completely absurd and stupid things going on.
February 5, 2026 at 8:41 PM
To be honest, I didn’t call for Keir Starmer to resign when he appointed Peter Mandelson (again), because the thought “Peter Mandelson? WTF? Really?! Are you insane..” just kinda whizzed past me and got lost among all the other completely absurd and stupid things going on.
Soooo.. If The Prime Minister of The United Kingdom, resigns over Epstein and Mandelson (I think he should), yet Starmer isn’t even named in the Epstein files…
…where does that leave The President of The United States?
I mean, Trump’s literally a criminal.
…where does that leave The President of The United States?
I mean, Trump’s literally a criminal.
February 5, 2026 at 8:33 PM
Soooo.. If The Prime Minister of The United Kingdom, resigns over Epstein and Mandelson (I think he should), yet Starmer isn’t even named in the Epstein files…
…where does that leave The President of The United States?
I mean, Trump’s literally a criminal.
…where does that leave The President of The United States?
I mean, Trump’s literally a criminal.
This is ridiculous!
Keir Starmer could not possibly have known that Peter Mandelson would behave like Peter Mandelson!
Keir Starmer could not possibly have known that Peter Mandelson would behave like Peter Mandelson!
February 5, 2026 at 8:18 PM
This is ridiculous!
Keir Starmer could not possibly have known that Peter Mandelson would behave like Peter Mandelson!
Keir Starmer could not possibly have known that Peter Mandelson would behave like Peter Mandelson!
I wonder if Kemi Badenoch has information on the whereabouts of the French Crown Jewels that were stolen from the Louvre last year?
February 5, 2026 at 7:50 PM
I wonder if Kemi Badenoch has information on the whereabouts of the French Crown Jewels that were stolen from the Louvre last year?
Some people don’t get why Starmer is being blamed for the current Mandelson situation.
Starmer brought back Peter Mandelson.
Peter fucking Mandelson.
Regardless of Jeffrey Epstein, it’s Peter Mandelson.
Starmer brought back Peter Mandelson.
Peter fucking Mandelson.
Regardless of Jeffrey Epstein, it’s Peter Mandelson.
February 5, 2026 at 7:27 PM
Some people don’t get why Starmer is being blamed for the current Mandelson situation.
Starmer brought back Peter Mandelson.
Peter fucking Mandelson.
Regardless of Jeffrey Epstein, it’s Peter Mandelson.
Starmer brought back Peter Mandelson.
Peter fucking Mandelson.
Regardless of Jeffrey Epstein, it’s Peter Mandelson.
Just a thought…
Keir Starmer may have had an ‘interesting’ weekly meeting with King Charles this week.
That would be King Charles who removed his own brother’s royal titles and sent him off to some estate to rot and without any actual conviction over Epstein.
Hmmmm…
Keir Starmer may have had an ‘interesting’ weekly meeting with King Charles this week.
That would be King Charles who removed his own brother’s royal titles and sent him off to some estate to rot and without any actual conviction over Epstein.
Hmmmm…
February 4, 2026 at 10:39 PM
Just a thought…
Keir Starmer may have had an ‘interesting’ weekly meeting with King Charles this week.
That would be King Charles who removed his own brother’s royal titles and sent him off to some estate to rot and without any actual conviction over Epstein.
Hmmmm…
Keir Starmer may have had an ‘interesting’ weekly meeting with King Charles this week.
That would be King Charles who removed his own brother’s royal titles and sent him off to some estate to rot and without any actual conviction over Epstein.
Hmmmm…
Fucking hell, there’s an bot on here reporting details about political ads, except it is also collecting and republishing the address details of a Green Party candidate and its posts mostly effectively promote Labour.
February 4, 2026 at 10:25 PM
Fucking hell, there’s an bot on here reporting details about political ads, except it is also collecting and republishing the address details of a Green Party candidate and its posts mostly effectively promote Labour.
6 months ago…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
6 months later, 3 months after its founding conference, and unable to stand candidates in a crucial election…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
10 years later…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
6 months later, 3 months after its founding conference, and unable to stand candidates in a crucial election…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
10 years later…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
February 4, 2026 at 5:27 PM
6 months ago…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
6 months later, 3 months after its founding conference, and unable to stand candidates in a crucial election…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
10 years later…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
6 months later, 3 months after its founding conference, and unable to stand candidates in a crucial election…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
10 years later…
“If Your Party ever gets off the ground…”
Some people:
The Greens are dangerous because they are anti NATO
Zarah Sultana: *backs The Green Party candidate*
Grassroots Left (who have Zarah at the top of their slate for Your Party): Greens are pro capitalist, pro NATO, don’t back them.
The Greens are dangerous because they are anti NATO
Zarah Sultana: *backs The Green Party candidate*
Grassroots Left (who have Zarah at the top of their slate for Your Party): Greens are pro capitalist, pro NATO, don’t back them.
February 4, 2026 at 5:09 PM
Some people:
The Greens are dangerous because they are anti NATO
Zarah Sultana: *backs The Green Party candidate*
Grassroots Left (who have Zarah at the top of their slate for Your Party): Greens are pro capitalist, pro NATO, don’t back them.
The Greens are dangerous because they are anti NATO
Zarah Sultana: *backs The Green Party candidate*
Grassroots Left (who have Zarah at the top of their slate for Your Party): Greens are pro capitalist, pro NATO, don’t back them.
I have had it ‘explained’ to me, that the definition of ‘tactical voting’, is voting for whichever of the Progressive parties, has the best chance of beating the right wing wing parties.
Okay.
But for some reason, it seems the same person, cannot work out whether to vote for Labour or Greens.
Okay.
But for some reason, it seems the same person, cannot work out whether to vote for Labour or Greens.
February 4, 2026 at 3:28 PM
I have had it ‘explained’ to me, that the definition of ‘tactical voting’, is voting for whichever of the Progressive parties, has the best chance of beating the right wing wing parties.
Okay.
But for some reason, it seems the same person, cannot work out whether to vote for Labour or Greens.
Okay.
But for some reason, it seems the same person, cannot work out whether to vote for Labour or Greens.
I have noticed some comments on here, where people have raised the risk of The Green Party splitting the left, and importantly the left/Centre vote.
Yet The Liberal Democrats exist and are not receiving such criticism.
Probably because it’s not really about The Green Party splitting the centre.
Yet The Liberal Democrats exist and are not receiving such criticism.
Probably because it’s not really about The Green Party splitting the centre.
February 4, 2026 at 2:32 PM
I have noticed some comments on here, where people have raised the risk of The Green Party splitting the left, and importantly the left/Centre vote.
Yet The Liberal Democrats exist and are not receiving such criticism.
Probably because it’s not really about The Green Party splitting the centre.
Yet The Liberal Democrats exist and are not receiving such criticism.
Probably because it’s not really about The Green Party splitting the centre.
When I am asked “how are you?”, it’s usually emotionally difficult to answer, or not answer honestly.
When I ask “how are you?” I really mean it though, it’s not merely a thing to say, and if someone doesn’t feel like answering, I understand.
When I ask “how are you?” I really mean it though, it’s not merely a thing to say, and if someone doesn’t feel like answering, I understand.
February 4, 2026 at 1:04 PM
When I am asked “how are you?”, it’s usually emotionally difficult to answer, or not answer honestly.
When I ask “how are you?” I really mean it though, it’s not merely a thing to say, and if someone doesn’t feel like answering, I understand.
When I ask “how are you?” I really mean it though, it’s not merely a thing to say, and if someone doesn’t feel like answering, I understand.
I believe that the Lesser of Two Evils ‘strategy’ in voting, is deeply flawed, overly simplistic, and misleading.
I have considered this for years now, and was prompted in particular, years back, by a piece by Chomsky I think in relation to Trump.
Regardless of any of this, it has been Trump twice
I have considered this for years now, and was prompted in particular, years back, by a piece by Chomsky I think in relation to Trump.
Regardless of any of this, it has been Trump twice
February 4, 2026 at 10:14 AM
I believe that the Lesser of Two Evils ‘strategy’ in voting, is deeply flawed, overly simplistic, and misleading.
I have considered this for years now, and was prompted in particular, years back, by a piece by Chomsky I think in relation to Trump.
Regardless of any of this, it has been Trump twice
I have considered this for years now, and was prompted in particular, years back, by a piece by Chomsky I think in relation to Trump.
Regardless of any of this, it has been Trump twice
I am seeing a fair few comments from people about how to know if the Gorton and Denton election is between Reform and Labour, or Reform and The Greens.
The issue here is that the question is misleading and too narrow.
First ask: What are my political beliefs in general.
Then look again…
The issue here is that the question is misleading and too narrow.
First ask: What are my political beliefs in general.
Then look again…
February 4, 2026 at 9:54 AM
I am seeing a fair few comments from people about how to know if the Gorton and Denton election is between Reform and Labour, or Reform and The Greens.
The issue here is that the question is misleading and too narrow.
First ask: What are my political beliefs in general.
Then look again…
The issue here is that the question is misleading and too narrow.
First ask: What are my political beliefs in general.
Then look again…
It’s been shit not having heroes or idols for most of my adult life at least. No one to look up to, or trust.
On the other hand, I am sadly frequently reminded of why:
Because they can’t be trusted and it creates mythical beings out of fallible people.
On the other hand, I am sadly frequently reminded of why:
Because they can’t be trusted and it creates mythical beings out of fallible people.
February 3, 2026 at 11:40 PM
It’s been shit not having heroes or idols for most of my adult life at least. No one to look up to, or trust.
On the other hand, I am sadly frequently reminded of why:
Because they can’t be trusted and it creates mythical beings out of fallible people.
On the other hand, I am sadly frequently reminded of why:
Because they can’t be trusted and it creates mythical beings out of fallible people.
I am considering, that the whole West/East political language, including things like “Western Imperialism” is effectively a bullshit hangover from the cold war and just gets in the way.
February 3, 2026 at 4:34 PM
I am considering, that the whole West/East political language, including things like “Western Imperialism” is effectively a bullshit hangover from the cold war and just gets in the way.
The United States’ business with Ukraine and NATO, is exactly that, business.
The primary reason why the US is the largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine (directly and indirectly), is because the US dominates the arms industry.
For the US, this is not about defence or risk management.
The primary reason why the US is the largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine (directly and indirectly), is because the US dominates the arms industry.
For the US, this is not about defence or risk management.
February 3, 2026 at 2:24 PM
The United States’ business with Ukraine and NATO, is exactly that, business.
The primary reason why the US is the largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine (directly and indirectly), is because the US dominates the arms industry.
For the US, this is not about defence or risk management.
The primary reason why the US is the largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine (directly and indirectly), is because the US dominates the arms industry.
For the US, this is not about defence or risk management.
I have made a decision, not necessarily my final position, it could change, but right now:
I agree with Zack Polanski and I think the UK should take steps toward leaving NATO. Not immediately, I think the important thing is to a) plan for exit, and b) plan for an alternative (without The US).
I agree with Zack Polanski and I think the UK should take steps toward leaving NATO. Not immediately, I think the important thing is to a) plan for exit, and b) plan for an alternative (without The US).
February 3, 2026 at 1:36 PM
I have made a decision, not necessarily my final position, it could change, but right now:
I agree with Zack Polanski and I think the UK should take steps toward leaving NATO. Not immediately, I think the important thing is to a) plan for exit, and b) plan for an alternative (without The US).
I agree with Zack Polanski and I think the UK should take steps toward leaving NATO. Not immediately, I think the important thing is to a) plan for exit, and b) plan for an alternative (without The US).
NATO is right now, being significantly undermined. It is being undermined by a) the presence of The United States, and b) the overinflated influence and power of the US within NATO.
The crux of the matter is Donald Trump, but in a way, he’s also a symptom of history.
The crux of the matter is Donald Trump, but in a way, he’s also a symptom of history.
February 3, 2026 at 1:24 PM
NATO is right now, being significantly undermined. It is being undermined by a) the presence of The United States, and b) the overinflated influence and power of the US within NATO.
The crux of the matter is Donald Trump, but in a way, he’s also a symptom of history.
The crux of the matter is Donald Trump, but in a way, he’s also a symptom of history.
There is nothing incoherent about holding a personal view that reforming an old organisation that is dominated by a country which now cannot be relied upon, isn’t possible.
There’s nothing incoherent about the idea of replacing it with a new partnership.
There’s nothing incoherent about the idea of replacing it with a new partnership.
Piece by @paulmason.bsky.social on the Green Party leader's incoherent stance on defence:
open.substack.com/pub/htsf/p/l...
open.substack.com/pub/htsf/p/l...
![Green Party leader Zack Polanski said yesterday that he wants Britain to leave NATO and set up: “an alternative alliance of countries based in Europe… plus Brazil and Mexico and global south countries’.
Questioned on Channel 4 News he added “I don’t think it’s possible [to reform NATO from within] because 86% of our arms imports come from the United States”.
The purpose of the new alliance, he said, is to “look at how we stop American imperialism”. He also wants to ditch Britain’s nuclear weapons unilaterally.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7ozv52xitkpjflxhygf5c65b/bafkreic6silahdtcstp7itiirenwwsqy6a3bjqhste353g4vfqz62waswe@jpeg)
February 2, 2026 at 10:49 PM
There is nothing incoherent about holding a personal view that reforming an old organisation that is dominated by a country which now cannot be relied upon, isn’t possible.
There’s nothing incoherent about the idea of replacing it with a new partnership.
There’s nothing incoherent about the idea of replacing it with a new partnership.