🟢Splits emerging in how local Green Groups are responding to Labour’s ultimatum on the ZIR motion, with some rejecting it and others refusing to do so. The national party is leaving it up to local councillors to decide how they respond. Critics include the Rother Green Group, who say they want to work with the party’s national executive “towards rescinding and rejecting” it. They say it doesn’t reflect their values and a two-state solution “is the only workable route for peace”. The Lewes Green Group of councillors have also said they don’t support the motion, although they have criticised Andy Burnham for putting them in this position given his record of promoting collaborative politics. Understand lots of Green Cllrs opposed to the motion feel this way, feeling as though they haven’t set similar moral red lines about national Labour policy when they easily could have, in order for local government to continue to function. Some Labour figures have also privately told me they blv the party HQ has overstepped, saying it puts councillors between a rock and a hard place in areas where it could cripple their ability to do anything if power sharing collapses. Those who have refused to reject the motion incl Derbyshire Dale Greens and Sheffield Greens. In Sheffield, MP Clive Betts plays down the impact this could have on local residents, telling me it was a "lose arrangement anyway". He said:“It was already fragile and in the end councillors have a responsibly to pass a budget, just because you are not in a power sharing agreement doesn’t absolve you of that.” Elsewhere discussions are ongoing. In Broadland deputy Labour leader Natasa Harpley says she is in conversation with the Green group and her priority “is the continued success of our partnership, that is delivering fantastic services for our local residents”.