It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens here, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, registering for a mailing list isn’t joining a party.
I worry it will just split the Labour vote and result in easier wins for competing parties.
As a lifelong labour supporter, I get what you mean, but ultimately feel as though I’ve been duped by this logic one time too many; the labour party are closer to the modern tories than they are the labour that brought us reforms like the NHS and so on.
I’m tired of labour being the only viable option because they’re the limp-dicked version of the Tories; Corbyn was the closest we got to seeing a supposedly left wing party actually introduce some socialist policy; and look at the furor that kicked up in the papers… The powers that be were clearly concerned about him, as we had a real chance for change (particularly with him having sights on taxing the rich their fair share) but instead he was smeared and the party showed its true colours by jumping at the opportunity to oust him.
No man or woman is above corruption; and people shouldn’t blindly follow anyone; but Corbyn has a lifetime record of activism… So if the options are Tory lite Vs a new party led by a lifetime activist. The question for me isn’t; “will this split the labour vote” but rather “why would anyone continue to vote labour, despite it being ultimately fruitless?”.
It wasn’t the Tories that just said no to a 500k strong petition to repeal the online safety act afterall. Fuck the Tories and fuck the Tory lites.
Agree. I voted labour to get the conservatives out that we’ve been suffering under for so long and we just ended up with another awful government, as you said, Tories lite. If we don’t end up with something better for the next election I have no idea who I’d vote for.
I wouldn’t even call them Tory Lite. They are Tories with red branding.
but instead he was smeared and the party showed its true colours by jumping at the opportunity to oust him
Now then, I voted for Corbyn for leader twice. But his statement after the report in to antisemitism came out was of his own doing. He was asked to remove a single sentence - about it being overblown by fake reports, even though was exclusively regarding substantiated instances - and refused to.
We really need to stop with this faux persecution narrative. Policywise he was great, but at literally everything else he failed, and often by his own actions.
This is exactly my point. The antisemitism angle was pushed so ferociously by the media, that it caused people such as yourself to act against your own interests.
Tell me, do you still think ousting Corbyn was the right move? Are we in a better position now under Kiers labour?
I don’t think he should have been ousted but at the same time he gave them material to smear him with.
What concerns me about him is he thinks that having principles is enough, he thinks that if he truly believes in something that’s the end of it and no more thinking about the matter is required. Righteously or wrongly, if you want to make an impact in the political world you have to play the political game, and part of that means limiting your exposure to smear campaigns.
The material he gave them was campaigning against Zionist activities in Gaza way back in the noughties; before all the genocidal stuff happening now, and his defence was anti-zionism ≠ anti-Semitism… which I think in today’s light is a very obvious statement, but back in 2019; the average person wasn’t aware of what was happening in Gaza, and so the papers ran with the antisemitism angle.
I get what you’re saying about playing the game; he could have been dishonest and claimed that the parties issues with Israel’s warmongering was actually antisemitism, apologised and given an empty promise about change, to which no-one would bat an eye (a politician lying is a politician breathing etc…), but that’s the exact problem with politics… Corbyn was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise toxic environment; unapologetically honest, and cantankerous when it comes to people pussy footing around an issue, and this is exactly why the media dogged him so heavily… they couldn’t buy him, and he was gunning for their owners hoarded wealth. If it wasn’t the anti-Semitism angle, they would have found something else to try and beat him with.
Even now, he’s attempting to force the UK to address the ongoing British involvement in the Gaza genocide; ofcourse the Tory lites rejected any investigation, which in itself is reminiscent of Blair’s labour and Iraq.
It’s not just that it’s everything that he does.
At some point he was asked if he would fire nuclear weapons in the event that we were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was a stupid question, and one that’s easy to answer, just say yes. You don’t need to think about it, you don’t need to analyse the hypothetical situation, just say yes you would, and move on.
But he turned it into this whole thing about whether the ends justify the means. Obviously he has a point, but that news conference wasn’t the time or place to have that discussion. The time to have that discussion is after you’re already in power, otherwise it’s pointless and refusing to give a straight yes or no answer just hands the media another weapon to hit you with. As they can say you’re indecisive.
that it caused people such as yourself to act against your own interests.
Continuing to vote for someone who lost two elections - regardless of how “fair” the other side fought is much more against my interests.
Tell me, do you still think ousting Corbyn was the right move?
I think any leader losing two elections is grounds of them to step down.
Were there unsubstantiated claims? Yes, absolutely.
But the report was not about those, it was about the ones that were proven to have happened. Replying to that report by bringing up unproven cases is very #notallmen energy.
Are we in a better position now under Kiers labour?
Better than under the Tories? Absolutely. I’m a trustee of a local foodbank, since July this is our first 12 month period ever where usage has reduced. That is directly related to increases in UC, the minimum wage, and DWP being moved to be helping people access benefits instead of finding any excuse to sanction them.
Is it better than what Corbyn campaigned on in 2017 or 2019? No, it’s not.
But actual improvements are better for those people who would otherwise be literally starving, compared to hypothetical alt futures.
Do you truly believe kier beat the Tories on his own merit, rather than the Tories self imploding? Even after winning, he had around 1m less on the popular vote than Corbyns loss in 2019… Why? Because voter apathy and a general disdain for the tories handed labour the last election, rather than them winning on their own merit.
The only reason I and many other people voted for Kiers labour was exactly as you said, 14 year of tory regime has decimated the countries welfare, and intentionally so… But the countries complicit nature In the bombing of children in Gaza continues, if it wasn’t for good ol’ Jeremy there wouldn’t even be an inquiry as labour have rejected the bill to hold an independently run tribunal to investigate the governments complicit nature in the Gaza genocide and that is just too big of a pain point for me. I refuse to have the blood of innocent children on my hands, even if it means life at home gets easier.
This is ultimately how democracy works right. Labour pretending to be the left wing option of the UK has left many voters disenfranchised… Now, labour can own up to being the centrist party they’ve become, and those who want the lesser of two evils can continue to vote for them… The rest of us who want to see real societal change, can try a new approach.
labour is not a left wing party, the sooner people accept that, the better
There will always be tension between where ideology, and hopes of a better world, meet with what is currently achievable.
What is achievable depends on load of factors; what technology exists, how wealth is concentrated, how divided people are, etc etc.
It’s the 1500+ days between elections that we must work to shift these factors closer towards where we want to be, so people support policies rather than reject them.
I’d love to be in a situation where overnight everyone realised it’s the ultra rich that are the problem, and band together to peacefully redistribute based on nerd. But that isn’t where we are.
I refuse to have the blood of innocent children on my hands
This is just pure virtue signaling. The idea that by purposefully throwing away your vote is somehow morally better than voting once every 5 years for the lesser of two evils is asinine in the extreme.
I feel like Reform are more likely to split the conservative vote than Jeremy Corbyn is likely to split the Labour vote. Mostly because the left has a very complicated relationship with him, he’s truly awful at being a politician.
Meanwhile Farage is a good politician, he’s good at playing up to a crowd, he’s good at taking advantage of controversy.
Also of course signing up to the party newsletter doesn’t mean that you’ll vote for them when the time comes. A lot will be doing it to try and send a message to labour. I’ve signed up to the newsletter but I’m not particularly inclined to actually vote for them. Not unless labour gets substantially worse.
I mean, we’ve already seen where sticking to established parties leads. Can’t play the same game and expect different results.
I’m not British so I probably shouldn’t get involved in British politics.
I think Britain needs the following reforms :
1. Nationalize all water companies.
2. Increase taxes on soda, sugar. Use the money to pay nurses and doctors better
3. Cancel Microsoft Windows contracts and switch to Linux. Cancel Microsoft Office contracts and switch to LibreOffice. Open Source can save the UK Government billions of pounds and improve national sovereignty.
4. Cap immigration at 2% a year. It’s very clear to me that immigration in recent decades has been far too high. It has undermined the labor market, the housing market, and it may undermine national cohesion.
5. Reform the UK campaign finance system. Why are foreigners allowed to wire money to UK political parties? Why is there no cap on donations? Britain has the most corrupt campaign finance system after the United States. Being better than the US is the same as having no standards at all.
6. Ban MPs from having second-jobs. It’s totally absurd. Many of them work as “consultants” or “lawyers” for big corporations. Many European countries banned these shady practices, but Britain somehow can’t get itself to do it.
7. Change the voting system to Proportional Representation. First-Past-The-Post creates disillusionment and anger. If nothing is done, FPTP may give Nigel Farage an absolute majority with only 30% of the votes.
8. Reform the House of Lords. Currently, it’s a joke. The overwhelming majority are from London and Southern England. They have lifetime job security. Several of them get paid just to show up, they play cards with friends while drinking tea. They vote for insecurity for everyone, except for themselves? Transform it into a House of Nations. With 200 people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. No centralized political appointments. They will be chosen by Mayors and Local Councillors.
9. Increase tax on private jets fuel. France did it . The low rate they pay is a scandal considering climate change and inequality. There is absolutely no reason why Britain can’t do it.
10. Ban foreign newspaper ownership. It shocks me that a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) is allowed to own many newspapers (The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Times). He directly told John Major to change UK Foreign Policy. Why is nothing done about this? Because Murdoch is a white Australian? I feel that if a Chinese or Turk told the Prime Minister what to do, people would scream “foreign interference”. Foreign ownership of any British newspaper should be capped at 40%.
I respect Jeremy Corbyn and I hope he can get these 10 things done.
My main worry about him is foreign policy. He once called Hamas and Hezbollah “my friends” (1). He first refused to believe Russia ordered a chemical attack in Britain (2). He refused to send weapons to Ukraine after Putin invaded (3).
Too often, he just assumes that because the West has done evil things, the anti-Western forces are the good guys.
Agree with most of that. Immigration doesn’t need capping though. Firstly it’s not even 2% now, it’s not even 1%. Net migration in 2024 was 0.6%.
I agree with pretty much everything you say except the immigration thing.
If you actually look at the statistics rather than listening to all the rhetoric you’ll realise that immigration into the UK really isn’t a problem. The main problem with the housing market isn’t immigrants who make up a tiny fraction of the people looking for a house, the main issue is that consecutive governments for years on end have not built enough houses.
The reason for this is actually pretty simple, it doesn’t cost much more money to build a house that will sell for a million pounds than a house that will sell for £100,000, so contractors build loads of expensive homes because it’s more profitable. What the government needs to do is force a minimum number of affordable houses to be built per year. Make it so they have to build affordable homes
A land value tax would fix this
It wouldn’t though because rich people are rich. They can afford to be extravagant, they all moan about it but ultimately just consider it the cost of doing business.
You would actually have to implement laws that directly instructed affordable homes to be constructed, trying to pussyfoot around the issue will just result in it not working.
Just limit foreign investment in real estate, practically half of London is owned by russian, arab and chinese billionaires. Other countries don’t allow owning property if you don’t live there or tax the shit out of second and third homes.
One big thing you missed was create a homestead housing tax system that taxes the hell out of you if you own a home you don’t live in. This incentivizes landlords to drop properties and for homeowners to purchase homes. It will crash the housing market but also Make a law that forbids home ownership to a corporate entity. To get the stockmarket out of home trading.
Cap immigration at 2% a year. It’s very clear to me that immigration in recent decades has been far too high. It has undermined the labor market, the housing market, and it may undermine national cohesion.
Honestly, any party which achieves only a migration cap of 100,000 per year will win the next four elections. 95% of the Kingdom wants lower immigration. I’ve never seen an issue this unifying in politics in my entire life. You can’t get 95% of the country to agree on anything. Except this.
that is orders of magnitude more than Farage’s brain cell count
it’s only like half a million more
I hope they make a deal with the greens and manage to not split lefty votes too much.
Wait until they find out what he thinks of Russia Vs Ukraine.
Why can’t we have a normal party?
First of all I disagree with Corbyn’s position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Corbyn is ideologically anti-war, and has a long history of that. He is wrong on this war but his position is at least respectable.
On the other hand, people are voting Farage in who is actively colluding with Russia. So 🤷
I’m just not sure why they’re giving what is basically two independent MPs so much airtime when the Green party is right there, already opposes Russia and Israel, and dislikes the online safety bill.
I’m sick of voting so the wrong lizard doesn’t get in. It clearly still means being ruled by lizards. Our voting system is unfit for purpose, as Farage will prove as he kicks out the foreigns, sells the NHS and brings back smoking in pubs, on like 25% of the vote.
Yes, Green is a good choice too. They also have policies I disagree with, but there’s never going to be a perfect party. I’d like if they get more attention too but that’s just how the media works. People like seeing a shiny new party coming in to disrupt the system, so that’s what the media will report on.
Also I heavily disagree with your classification of Corbyn as a lizard. Come on now, you can disagree with his stances but he’s not a lizard. Just listen to what his constituents say about him.
I was talking more about Labour in order to get the Tories out or keep Farage out.
The Corbyn Party realistically hasn’t got a prayer, he’s about as popular with the general public as a fart in a spacesuit, and I suspect the media is simply bigging him up to split the vote. He also vocally wanted to scrap the nuclear deterrent, which would still be ringing in people’s ears as Russia marched into Ukraine. If he starts picking up any real steam, that will be plastered front and centre of any campaign against him.
Any good sources there? Never hear anything about the greens and I voted for them. I assume they are being generally sensible so the media refuses to report on it because people might get ideas.
The Green Party wants to significantly liberalise immigration to the UK. This is at a time when 95% of the Kingdom wants lower immigration. For this reason (and many more), the Greens are currently polling at 9%. The reason they don’t get much airtime is because their policies are unpopular and people don’t like them.
It’s almost as if representative democracy is a shit idea, designed to empower populists and demagogues.
It’s far from perfect but it’s better than everything else humanity has attempted.
We can do better.
I’m not so sure. Humans are incredibly diverse by nature. We have evolved to inhabit every ecological niche in existence, and then we invented many more. We can’t get a population to agree that the sky is blue or that water is wet or the Earth is round or that vaccines are safe. There is always at least 10% who disagree on any subject. When you map each 10% group as a Venn diagram, it covers everyone in the population on some issue, big or small. In terms of governance, this means that any direction chosen will be opposed by a relatively large minority. There are only two options here and it is absolutely binary: majority rule, or minority rule. History has taught us that minority rule is horrific. It tends to create massive inequality, death, suffering, and eventually revolution. Democracy is the solution presented for majority rule, and I am intimately aware of the phrase “tyranny by the majority.” In fact I would categorise democracy as exactly that. Despite that, it is better than the alternatives.
So I think we are evolutionarily bound to a best case scenario in which the majority chooses a generally agreed upon direction, while a loud minority gets really angry. Democracy ensures that that loud minority doesn’t get violent because they’re given a seat at the table and a voice, even if they don’t get their way this time. I see no other successful governance models from the real world. Everything “better” is theoretical.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot with my by strongly opposing nuclear power. It is not a tenable stance to take in a green economy. In my opinion anyway.
