You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If our resident lefties could compile some sort of list about who exactly is allowed by them to comment on what, that’d be a great help to the rest of us
Says the man who has spent the last 10 years on here doing everything possible to cancel, ridicule and silence anyone with a left-of-centre political viewpoint. Binners: STW's human daily mail chatbot. 😀
the greens are looking likely to be third largest party in the next holyrood election ( its tight for places 3-5 tho)
The problem here is twofold. 1) No-one cares about Scotland and 2) No-one cares about the Greens.
Westminster hasn't given the slightest of ****s about anything that isn't London or the Home Counties for years (and lest we forget, the population of London is about double the population of the entirety of Scotland). When the Right Honourable MP for Thrutching, West Yorkshire stands up in Parliament to demand to know what they're proposing to do about immigrants coming in on small trains from the other side of the Pennines there's about three people on the benches one of whom is asleep, another who's doing a Sudoku and a third who took a wrong turning on their way to the bar.
As for the Greens: Can anyone name their current leader? Come to that, can anyone name any of their previous leaders? (This isn't a test as I have no doubts that some of you can, but your Man On The Clapham Omnibus likely won't be able to.)
I genuinely wish that things were different, but here we are. Boasting about being the third largest party in Scotland is like hitting a red sector on Bully's prize board with your third dart. Enjoy your Teasmade.
Looks like the whole gangs here? Do you have a sign? A flaming little red book, maybe?
I’ll leave you all to furiously agree with each other and denounce any non-believers 😃
If our resident lefties could compile some sort of list about who exactly is allowed by them to comment on what, that’d be a great help to the rest of us 😃
How bizarre, according to you it was very much a case of self-censorship. Apparently you were no longer prepared to engage with Lefties on the thread discussing the current Labour government.
I am fascinated to learn why you are suddenly so enthusiastic to engage with exactly the same people on this thread.
Nothing to do with the fact your halfwit Prime Minister who has alienated so many voters and now appears to be handing Nigel Farage a general election victory on a plate has become a total embarrassment to you?
I’ll leave you all to furiously agree with each other and denounce any non-believers
Or you could present a coherent argument, rather than a series of tired jibes and Monty Python memes. Worth a try, surely?
Corbyn is a lifelong EU sceptic
Whilst this may be true, there is something of a leap between being EU-sceptical and being pro-Brexit / anti-EU. Being sceptical is laudable, asking "are we doing the right thing here?" is a sensible stance. The tabloids love nothing better than a "[something controversial] is being discussed in Parliament" headline on a slow news day but that's how politics works (for some value of 'works' at any rate).
Whatever happened to "Country before party"?
you can't simultaneously believe he's been a completely useless legislator who has failed in all his objectives throughout his parliamentary career and also that he was the secret co-architect of the most dramatic political development of the last 50 years...
As far as I can tell from Binners' crusade, Corbyn's biggest crime was that he potentially had a chance to put a stop to brexit and didn't.
I think I can agree on this to a point. Whenever Corbyn did/said anything, the gutter press were on him like a tramp on hot chips. Meanwhile Dominar Nigel XVI was hailed as the Second Coming. With the benefit of hindsight it should've been obvious how all this was going to play out. Yet almost a decade on, we've still not learned anything. "Your Party" is doomed to failure for the simple reason that the gutter press will bury it as soon as they perceive it to be an actual threat rather than an amusing curiosity.
I was referring to a Green-Your Party alliance for FPTP Westminster seats in Scotland and NI.
Given the disagreements between the Scottish Greens and the English/Welsh greens I suspect forming an alliance with one would rule out an alliance with the other.
Hold on - so you're saying that what Starmer said above shows that he is against free migration within the EU and therefore against EU membership? Just because he mentions the public concern around immigration? Crikey...
Yes absolutely, my words are quite clear, and I am happy to stand by them, unlike right wingers on here pretending to be centrists who when they realise the stupidity and ignorance of their comments try and squirm away and pretend they meant something completely different.
Right. So it would be a "lie and a con job" to pretend those words quoted above meant anything other than opposition to free migration in the EU and opposition to EU membership. Got it.
But the words quoted aren't Starmer's. It's......Jeremy Corbyn's speech.
https://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/my-speech-on-the-result-of-the-eu-referendum/
As for the Greens: Can anyone name their current leader? Come to that, can anyone name any of their previous leaders? (This isn't a test as I have no doubts that some of you can, but your Man On The Clapham Omnibus likely won't be able to.)
Well the obvious name is Caroline Lucas and I think quite a few members of the public could name her, certainly potential Green voters.
But that is the point, the new party has, whether you like him or not, a very high profile front man. And perhaps more importantly he is actually liked by the very voters that this new party is targeting.
Jeremy Corbyn's popularity among a lot of voters should not be underestimated he very easily beat the Labour Party candidate at the last general election.
So this is why it would make a lot of sense for the Green Party to go into an alliance with the new party. The Greens are never likely to have high profile politicians in their own right, and not least because their leaders have limited influence and are only elected for two years. Standing alongside Corbyn and being an important part of a movement wider than themselves would massively boost their profile.
I genuinely believe that under the current political climate that if the Greens and the new left-wing party get their act together they could realistically get up to 20% of the vote in a general election.
It looks increasingly likely that no party will win a majority at the next general election, Reform are the only ones currently in the running for that, so it is therefore quite possible that politicians from both the Greens and the new party could be cabinet ministers after the next general election.
Which, in my mind at least, would be a massive step forward. Other opinions are available.
Your Party:
- Tax corporations and billionaires fairly to fund public services.- Prevent private corporations from profiting from the NHS.
- Bring utilities back into public ownership.
- Stop funding endless wars and supporting genocide in the Middle Eas
But your party don’t have any policies yet as they haven’t worked out who will be entitled to propose them or vote on them.
So this is why it would make a lot of sense for the Green Party to go into an alliance with the new party.
The main problem with the Green party, as indicated by their name, is their obsession with climate policy and their focus on environmental issues. It's understandable, that's why they were set up, and they reflect the concerns and anxieties about climate change and other environmental issues held by middle class liberals and the younger generation. But however much they adopt and promote left-wing economic policies, they're never going to be recognised for those.
Conversely, a new left party can focus on economic policy and social justice. Add the two together in an alliance and there's a perfect opportunity to combine progressive leftwing economics and social justice with net-zero and other environmental concerns. Seems like a no-brainer to me but I question whether the liberal academic culture in the Green party will be able to tolerate the more proletarian class-based politics of this new left party.
Right. So it would be a "lie and a con job" to pretend those words quoted above meant anything other than opposition to free migration in the EU and opposition to EU membership. Got it.
But the words quoted aren't Starmer's. It's......Jeremy Corbyn's speech.
Try reading that speach by the way, I can quote some bits if you like, as you apear to be at best misrepresenting it, or likely were to lazy to read it.
The Tories’ choice; to make deprived communities pay for a crisis not of their making has opened the door to a nastier, more divisive politics.
That has sought to blame immigrants, not government, governments that let industry go to the wall that have failed to invest, that have deregulated the labour market and have turned a deaf ear to those communities left behind.
I want to be clear – the chronic housing crisis across our country is the direct result of this government’s politics – flogging off public housing whilst failing to build homes for all.
Migration will be part of it and that will be led by our shadow home secretary Andy Burnham and our shadow immigration minister Keir Starmer as they travel around Britain.
The whole country must come together in the wake of what became a divisive referendum campaign discuss the consequences calmly and rationally and I want Labour to lead that debate.
That’s why Labour backed restoring the Migration Impact Fund to relieve pressure on local services such as schools, GPs surgeries and housing in areas of high migration. That fund was established by Gordon Brown in 2008 but was abolished by David Cameron in 2010.
We must talk about immigration but we will never pander to prejudice.
Quite different to Starmers "island of strangers" and "immigration has caused incalculable damage". And of course his constant eagerness to keep immigration front and centre in the media and of his dismissal of freedom of movement which absolutely rules out re-joining the EU and yet his fanbois keep ignoring.
I absolutely disagree with Corbyns historic opposition to the EU, I don't know what his current position on the EU is, but I am sure I would get an honest answer from him unlike slippery Starmer who would happily lie into the face of anyone.
I will also state my view on the EU, I want to re-join, but I don't think it will cure any of the economic and social problems the country is facing, we have had steady growth for the past 25 years, with troughs and peaks but that economic growth has outstripped wage growth, and it has created a huge asset bubble which is leaching the economic power from most people, the housing costs are generational debt that is having a far bigger impact on peoples lives than government debt. And all that happened within and outside the EU, and the same problems are being faced currently in the EU.
You notice that is how you have an honest conversation, by actually telling people what you believe in, when a politician says "we" need to have an honest conversation, it is because he or she is lying, they have absolutely no intention of having an honest conversation, they at best want to avoid the conversation or more likely feed bullshit to the gullible.
I genuinely believe that under the current political climate that if the Greens and the new left-wing party get their act together they could realistically get up to 20% of the vote in a general election.
You are of course entitled to your belief but in the real word there is no change of them getting more than about 2 MPs. They will end up with fewer MPs than the greens
So this is why it would make a lot of sense for the Green Party to go into an alliance with the new party. The Greens are never likely to have high profile politicians in their own right, and not least because their leaders have limited influence and are only elected for two years. Standing alongside Corbyn and being an important part of a movement wider than themselves would massively boost their profile.
None of this applies in Scotland. Greens are expected to double their MSPs at the next holyrood election. having had representation in parliament for decades they have decent recognition
Is this new movement going to follow a green aghenda? If so join the greens an established set of parties. If not why would the greens dilute their message in joining with a smaller less influential group?
Sorry dude - this is the height of delusion. There is nothing for the greens in joining this ragtag leftish splinter group
I genuinely believe that under the current political climate that if the Greens and the new left-wing party get their act together they could realistically get up to 20% of the vote in a general election.
20% gets you virtually zero representation under fptp. greens in Scotland in a 5 party systyem get 16+% already.
Again nothing for the greens in doing this
The main problem with the Green party, as indicated by their name, is their obsession with climate policy and their focus on environmental issues. It's understandable, that's why they were set up, and they reflect the concerns and anxieties about climate change and other environmental issues held by middle class liberals and the younger generation. But however much they adopt and promote left-wing economic policies, they're never going to be recognised for those.
Without following a green agenda the planet is going to become uninhabitable. Its the single most important issue and dwarfs everything else. also true green policies are in opposition to a lot of the usual policies from the left - ie zero growth
when a politician says "we" need to have an honest conversation, it is because he or she is lying, they have absolutely no intention of having an honest conversation, they at best want to avoid the conversation or more likely feed bullshit to the gullible.
🤔 Surely you're not saying Jeremy Corbyn was lying when he said:
we cannot duck the issue of immigration, instead we need to start an honest and rational debate.
https://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/my-speech-on-the-result-of-the-eu-referendum/
The main problem with the Green party, as indicated by their name, is their obsession with climate policy
I'm not a Green but...we literally face a climate threat that could continue to kill millions and millions of people, and that's not even the worst case scenario!
(I'm conscious that a lot of this broader Greens chat is technically off topic. Maybe I'll start another thread...)
Without following a green agenda the planet is going to become uninhabitable. Its the single most important issue and dwarfs everything else.
I don't disagree, but working people are primarily concerned with keeping a roof over their heads and providing for their families today, rather than worrying too much about what might happen 30-50 years time when they're long dead. The only way of achieving the green policies to mitigate and (unlikely) prevent climate collapse is to get working people onside via progressive economic policies and social justice. If the solution to climate change is to make working people poorer while the rich get a free pass, then it's not going to happen.
also true green policies are in opposition to a lot of the usual policies from the left - ie zero growth
Being pro-growth is not a leftwing policy, it's a classic neo-liberal trickle down trope. Maybe back in the 50s and 60s it was a thing with Keynesian economic policy, but that's long gone. I think most working people have twigged that higher GDP doesn't translate to higher incomes and quality of life for them. If ever the left were going to align with greens on zero growth sustainable economics, now is the time.
I will also state my view on the EU, I want to re-join, but I don't think it will cure any of the economic and social problems the country is facing,
It doesn't have to.
Leaving the EU was never going to cure any of the economic and social problems the country was facing either, but that's how it was sold, and that's what people bought. Or at least, what they thought they were buying ("we know what we voted for!" and all that).
The difference between honesty and lies is Marketing, and the liars are winning because they're better at it. People don't want "truth" and "integrity," they want to be told what they want to hear.
Corbyn, the duplicitous old goat 3 line whipped the labour party into voting article 50 through..
He could have allowed a free vote for his MPs and that would have stopped brexit also.
He chose the authoritarian approach though!
What a hypocrite...
His head should be on a spike next to farrage.
Pure ideological selfishness.
Look at corbyns actual actions, don't listen to his mealy mouthed words.
The man is insidious.
Being pro-growth is not a leftwing policy,
I'll believe a left wing party calling for zero growth when I see it. Its never been the case so far that I have seen.
The greens already have a highly redistributive agenda - again what is the advantage for them in joining with this group?
Leftists are fighting the last war, greens are fighting the next
He could have allowed a free vote for his MPs and that would have stopped brexit also.
NO it wouldn't. The pro brexit parties had a majority and many labour MPs would have voted for brexit
Although I would be lying if I said part of me wasn't looking forward to see what utter drivel he writes in his manifesto, should be good for a laugh!
I mean the **** 3 line whipped for gods sake... If that's not authoritarian I don't know what is, pmsl!
Surely you're not saying Jeremy Corbyn was lying when he said:
No, because he then went on to actually tell us his beliefs, which were consistent with everything he told us over a long period of time.
But lets get back to your original quote which started this exchange, since you seem to want to do anything and everything to avoid it.
I, for one, was happy to hear Starmer push back at some of this nonsense about rejoining the EU and going back to free migration across the EU that some of the green-red crowd have been proposing. He's focusing on the legitimate concerns of British people around the strain on public services.
Which is written in black and white, clearly states your opposition to re-joining the EU and freedom of movement, your distain for left wing and green politics, and then the suggestion that immigration is the cause the strain on public services. Of course I don't know if you actually believe any of the nonsense you freely spout in your constant attempts at attacking progressive politics, but I will give you a chance to at least try and defend them rather than the desperate evasion tactics that you have tried and failed at.
There's nothing progressive about corbyn... Regressive, sure.
I genuinely believe that under the current political climate that if the Greens and the new left-wing party get their act together they could realistically get up to 20% of the vote in a general election.
You are of course entitled to your belief but in the real word there is no change of them getting more than about 2 MPs. They will end up with fewer MPs than the greens
Since you mention the real world let's talk about it.
Working on the assumption that the pro-Palestine left-wing independent MPs, who like Corbyn beat Labour candidates, will be joining this new party when it is officially formed it will instantly result in them having 6 MPs which will be 2 more than Reform currently have.
Bearing in mind that this arithmetic is based solely on the general election result at a time when Labour was far more popular than it is now and when they won a landslide victory it is extremely unlikely that they will lose any of those seats at the next general election.
And not just because Labour is considerably less popular now than they were 12 months ago but also because Labour are now far more complicit to supporting the genocidal far-right regime in Israel than they were whilst in opposition.
Support for a left-wing pro-Palestine alternative to Labour can only realistically grow over the next 4 years, there is no reasonable prospect that it will diminish.
Indeed you can say with near enough one hundred percent certainty that the Labour Health Secretary will easily lose his seat at the next general election. There even a realistic possibility that Keir Starmer's seat is at risk. Certainly throughout the country Labour seats are vulnerable.
Not increasing on their current share of 6 seats is unlikely as Reform not winning dozens of seats more. UK politics has changed, time to accept this reality.
There's nothing progressive about corbyn... Regressive, sure.
Well it is Starmer happily doing the oligarchs bidding and allowing such increasing wealth inequality, while toadying up to fascist emperor Trump, that we will soon be regressed back to the feudal system.
Although I would be lying if I said part of me wasn't looking forward to see what utter drivel he writes in his manifesto, should be good for a laugh!
I don't think you have really quite grasped the concept that they are not targeting you.
That is the whole point of this new party, they couldn't give a monkeys about people like you, they are not trying to please everyone with the inevitable result of pissing off everyone, as Starmer seems particularly apt at doing.
They know full well that in all likelihood they will get 15-25% of the vote (possibly a similar amount to Labour) and that there will almost certainly be a coalition government after the next general election. Who honestly believes that one party will win a majority?
That opens up the chance of them having actual influence on UK government policy, even if 75-85% of voters, including you mattyfez, haven't voted for them.
You going to take the bet they get less than 6 mps Ernie? I am confident enough to wager all the Greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat at a sitting
Indeed you can say with near enough one hundred percent certainty that the Labour Health Secretary will easily lose his seat at the next general election. There even a realistic possibility that Keir Starmer's seat is at risk. Certainly throughout the country Labour seats are vulnerable.
You would count it as a victory to get more tory / reform MPs?
The greens already have a highly redistributive agenda - again what is the advantage for them in joining with this group?
The popular view of the Green's economic policies is that they want to take money off working people to pay for expensive climate solutions which may or may not work, whilst denying them the opportunity to go on holiday and forcing them to buy expensive electric cars and give up stuff they enjoy like eating meat every day. Some/most of this is nonsense of course but the Green party repeatedly fail to communicate this and instead seem content for working people to believe that they are going to have to suffer in the fight against climate change. A bit of leftwing populism wouldn't go amiss in this regard. Stop telling people how much they're going to have to give up, and start telling them what they're going to gain.
You would count it as a victory to get more tory / reform MPs?
He said he thought it was likely. He didn't say he believed it to be desirable (or at least, I missed it if he did).
The greens already have a highly redistributive agenda - again what is the advantage for them in joining with this group?
The popular view of the Green's economic policies is that they want to take money off working people to pay for expensive climate solutions which may or may not work, whilst denying them the opportunity to go on holiday and forcing them to buy expensive electric cars and give up stuff they enjoy like eating meat every day. Some/most of this is nonsense of course but the Green party repeatedly fail to communicate this and instead seem content for working people to believe that they are going to have to suffer in the fight against climate change. A bit of leftwing populism wouldn't go amiss in this regard. Stop telling people how much they're going to have to give up, and start telling them what they're going to gain.
So you are actually calling for a green red alliance where the greens would have to tell the same lies as the other parties and to throw away all their policy positions? The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
You going to take the bet they get less than 6 mps Ernie? I am confident enough to wager all the Greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat at a sitting
They could get 6 seats very easily - Corbyn, Sultana, McDonell, Abbot, Lewis and just a few of the MPs that Starmer will continue to remove the whip from over the next few years. There must be some actual Labour MPs in the Labour party who are very pissed off with what Starmer has turned it into.
The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
TJ it's not me the greens have to convince, it's the average working person who hasn't got time to worry about climate change because they're too busy trying to support their families. Part of the social justice element of climate change is ensuring that working people don't have to make sacrifices while the rich get a free pass to carry on with business as usual. Let the greens do what they're good at and promote and popularise climate policy and other green issues, and let the left focus on social justice and equality. It's an obvious combination if both sides can overcome their class prejudices.
So you are actually calling for a green red alliance where the greens would have to tell the same lies as the other parties and to throw away all their policy positions? The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
Asking people who are already struggling to give up even more is a non-starter.
Any Green party that wants anyone other than the comfortably off middle-class who feel guilty about their over-consumption to vote for them have to start by tackling the wealth hoarding that has led to widespread poverty.
Once people aren't picking which essentials they can have from month to month, then we can start on societal lifestyle choices.
But yes, ultimately the goal has to be to reduce massive over-consumption.
Any Green party that wants anyone other than the comfortably off middle-class who feel guilty about their over-consumption to vote for them have to start by tackling the wealth hoarding that has led to widespread poverty.
Which is already green policy - a highly re distributive agenda. But it also needs lifestyle change across the entire population.
It's an obvious combination if both sides can overcome their class prejudices.
No its not. It really has no advantage to the greens at all. It would dilute the message, allow them to be written off as loony left and there is no class prejudice from the greens. Its you that is showing "class prejudice" here writing them off as only for the well off. Utter nonsense
Try reading the green party manifesto.
https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/creating-a-fairer-greener-economy/
You going to take the bet they get less than 6 mps Ernie? I am confident enough to wager all the Greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat at a sitting
They could get 6 seats very easily - Corbyn, Sultana, McDonell, Abbot, Lewis and just a few of the MPs that Starmer will continue to remove the whip from over the next few years. There must be some actual Labour MPs in the Labour party who are very pissed off with what Starmer has turned it into.
I bet they do not.
I'll bet a pastry the corbyn party get 5 or fewer MPs in the next GE.
There's a caviat though, if they don't stand then I still win.
So those of you promoting a red / green alliance why do these folk splitting off from the labour party not just join the greens? If they are so aligned then surely it makes sense?
Its you that is showing "class prejudice" here writing them off as only for the well off.
Hardly, apart from general elections I've voted green in pretty much every election in the last 10 years. As I said, I'm not typical of the people they have to convince. The class issue is a real one. From a purely anecdotal viewpoint, I know loads of well-off climate conscious middle class types who vote green, and barely a single working class climate-agnostic person who does (the latter are swinging mostly towards Reform). Image and optics are the main issues for the Green Party. Oxbridge educated southerners acting as 'co-leaders' speaking loftily about how we're all going to have to make sacrifices simply isn't going to break through to popular support.
why do these folk splitting off from the labour party not just join the greens? If they are so aligned then surely it makes sense?
Probably because they've spent most of their political lives speaking to and surrounded by the very working class people I'm talking about who haven't got time in their lives to worry about the consequences of climate change in 50 years time. They know that these people are never going to vote for the Green party in its current form, so why would they join them?
They know that these people are never going to vote for the Green party in its current form, so why would they join them
So no point in a red / green alliance then?: It would put off both parties voters if your analysis is right.
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens. If the greens have any sense they will dismiss the idea
Oxbridge educated southerners acting as 'co-leaders' speaking loftily about how we're all going to have to make sacrifices simply isn't going to break through to popular support.
Aside from they arent.
That is the image put forward by the right wing press and hence the rest of the media whilst slavishly praising their public school educated southerners as men (and lets face it they are near enough all men) of the people.
Out of all their recent leaders just one has been oxbridge educated.
The perception is obviously a problem but its best not to repeat the lies.
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens.
And yet you accuse lefties of being factional or partisan? The greens have won no more than 5 MPs in over 40 years of campaigning on the subject so it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their electoral impact. The left is hardly in a place to brag either, but they do have a ready-baked base of support (over 500k signed up so far), along with many experienced MPs, councillors and activists to build on that the greens could only dream of.
How about we put the irrelevant cultural differences aside and see that this could be a great opportunity to unite two sides of the same coin?
What's your problem with red-green alliances.TJ, too European and not very British for your liking ?
Red-green alliances have successfully entered governments in France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden.
Out of all their recent leaders just one has been oxbridge educated.
Fair enough but the point about their image of being liberal middle class academic types lecturing the rest us about how we need to change our ways still stands. Who knows maybe Polanski will change that image but it's going to be a hard one to shift. He could do a lot worse than sharing a platform with Corbyn. At very least it would get him on the news, provide a bit of name-recognition and the opportunity to get his message across.
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
How about we put the irrelevant cultural differences aside and see that this could be a great opportunity to unite two sides of the same coin?
Its not too sides of the same coin at all. Thats the problem. Its not irrelevant cultural differences - its fundamental policy differences.
I see zero advantage to the greens here - only huge disadvatages
What's your problem with red-green alliances.TJ, too European and not very British for your liking ?
Red-green alliances have successfully entered governments in France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden.
Post election not pre election. Post elections in a PR system that requires multi party coalitions. Greens have been in coalition with the SNP in Scotland - post election. they did not have a pre election pact
My objection is that this gives no advantage to the greens - just disadvantage
The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
Part of the social justice element of climate change is ensuring that working people don't have to make sacrifices while the rich get a free pass to carry on with business as usual.
I have a (genuine) question: do you mean
1) the Greens can only ask the working class to make sacrifices IF the overconsumption of the rich is also being addressed?
2) the Greens cannot ask the working class to make sacrifices - they're already struggling enough?
3) the Greens wouldn't need to ask the working classes to make sacrifices if the overconsumption of the rich was addressed?
Or something else?
I do see your argument (and as another middle class Centrist doughnut, it's not me that needs to be convinced). I also wonder whether the actual Green position is more "we all need to make sacrifices" (hairshirts) or "if we get this right none of us needs to make big sacrifices bur clearly we can't go on burying ourselves in plastic shit forever" (fully automated luxury Communism).
I bet they do not.
Okay £100 which winner will give to charity of their choice. Key to this is what is the deadline by when the 6MPs are required seeing as party if not officially a party yet? (And obviously there needs to be a party formed otherwise all bets are off)
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens.
The greens have won no more than 5 MPs in over 40 years of campaigning on the subject so it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their electoral impact. The left is hardly in a place to brag either, but they do have a ready-baked base of support (over 500k signed up so far), along with many experienced MPs, councillors and activists to build on that the greens could only dream of.
That's true, and there's only one party that is in a long term position to condescend to the others about technical expertise in winning elections time after time - the Tories. TBF, a honourable mention to the SNP in Holyrood too.
But on the other hand, 40 years ago the Greens' policies were seen as mad and extreme. Recycle plastic bottles? We're gonna be flooded by some melting icebergs? Eating meat is bad for the environment? Fack off you yoghurt weaving mentalist. These Green policies are now mainstream across all the other parties (except Reform, probably), the distinctiveness of their platform has been "stolen"! Maybe it's the Greens that really shifted the Overton window and had the biggest impact on British politics!
I think the "500k signed up" might turn out to be a bit of a soap bubble. How many will actually open the email, and how many will read it, and how many will then pay money to join, and how many will be active at election time? I do agree with you that having activists that will knock on doors and all the rest is just as important as tons of money. And to be fair if just 10% of that 500,000 people got actively involved, you'd have a powerful campaigning machine.
(I just noticed my phone autocorrects "I do agree with you" to "I don't agree with you". It knows me too well and I should be less argumentative).
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
The sort of people who think Corbyn is lunatic fringe are the same people who think the Greens are lunatic fringe.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
I think the "500k signed up" might turn out to be a bit of a soap bubble. How many will actually
I'm inclined to agree here. "Signing up" is something of a dead cat argument. "If you think everything's a bit shit then click here to register interest in something different" isn't a difficult sell even if that Something Different is ill-defined (cf. brexit).
Should I know where to look there's probably prior statistics on this sort of affair, a bit like the 90-9-1 rule.
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
The sort of people who think Corbyn is lunatic fringe are the same people who think the Greens are lunatic fringe.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start? 🤣
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start?
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
Oh you can if you want - it will be an irrelevance on the fringes tho and the greens would IMO be foolish to go an alliance with a party that does not share their fundamental aims. There is nothing in this for the greens
Should I know where to look there's probably prior statistics on this sort of affair, a bit like the 90-9-1 rule.
I wonder if (in retrospect) it might have been better to wait just a little bit longer until the party was founded and had bank accounts, and then the first offer would have been "pay us a pound to join and participate in founding our new party". They would have got some initial funding and there would have been an initial action. Now they've got to persuade the punters to come back to the website a second time etc...
...but I bet Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need advice on how to set up a political movement from me tbf
Oh you can if you want
Gee, thanks.
it will be an irrelevance on the fringes tho and the greens would IMO be foolish to go an alliance with a party that does not share their fundamental aims. There is nothing in this for the greens
I don't care what the Greens do. If they knew what they were doing they would ditch the Green name all together as it puts more people off than on and sounds like a single issue party (which some on this very post have been led to believe) and it really isn't.
I just want a party to vote for that I am very close to that is all. Labour are pretty much now the same as Tories who are similar to Lib Dems and I don't want continuation of how it is now.
Gosh, this thread is......
ALIVE!
I can't keep up !
You could call it the "Corbyn effect". Magic Grandad appears to an uncanny ability to energise and revitalize stale and morose UK politics.
I suspect that might be the reason why he is so popular with young voters.
There used to be 550,000 labour members, now its closer to 300,000 that's a 250,000 drop in just a little over 5 years. 250,000 people willing to pay dues to a political party that represents them, and I bet there are many more still in the party who could well move due to the direction the party is currently moving.
Then there are many younger people who have been put off joining political parties due to the right wing consensus of the current crop, people who are entering the workforce now realising they are likely never to be able to buy a house, that the previous generations have pulled up the ladders of opportunity and are facing the impact that AI will have on those low level professional jobs that most had hoped to achieve, that are saddled with the state their parents have left the nation, now probably the 2nd generation to have less hope and economic power in their own lives than the previous generation.
I don't think that this new party will have any problem at all getting members, in fact I think that labour is heading for a membership crisis, not that I think they care as they are only interested in servicing their big money donors now.
...but I bet Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need advice on how to set up a political movement from me tbf
I think he could use all the advice he can get, but the dumb twunt would ignore it anyway 😆
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start?
Write us a list and we can rate the lunacy 1 to 11
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
I think most would suggest that the right wing of the party and the labour head office sabotaging him at every step had quite a considerable impact on that, and of course the false accusations of anti-semitism that all the right wingers were happy to promote also had a a rather large impact, so singlehandedly seems something of an exaggeration at best.
But keep telling us your stories, I do find them quite amusing if a little childish.
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling isn't working you will go whining and crying on other threads telling the usual lie that the mythical big 6 lefties have driven you off the politics thread.
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling isn't working you will go whining and crying on other threads telling the usual lie that the mythical big 6 lefties have driven you off the politics thread.
Well simple electoral maths tells you that many Pele voted for Boris because the alternative was Corbyn. You can put your head in the sand and blame anyone and everyone else for his defeat of you want to but it’s not going to change the facts that he is completely unelectable as a pm. He has his base in his constituency but in the wider country the simple electoral maths shows he won’t win
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling
I thought that’s what all this fantasy Corbyn is going to save the world was
So, any one willing to bet in favour of magic grandad?
There's a French Croissant or Danish pastry in it for you, to keep it relevant? 😆
I am quite pleased with the silly taunting from the usual suspects, perfectly shows the need for the new party, and why voters will be driven from the failing old guard still desperately trying to lie their way out of the mess they have created.
I'm all for taking the piss out of Corbyn, obviously, but tbh using the same old nicknames and memes is just cringe and boring. It reminds me a lot of the Daily Mail types that referred to Tony Blair as Tony B. Liar, every. single. time. It's not that it's politically offensive. It's just not that funny.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders. Maybe some of the willywavers (me included) should reflect on whether there's some latent sexism involved in that.
I'm all for taking the piss out of Corbyn, obviously, but tbh using the same old nicknames and memes is just cringe and boring. It reminds me a lot of the Daily Mail types that referred to Tony Blair as Tony B. Liar, every. single. time. It's not that it's politically offensive. It's just not that funny.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders. Maybe some of the willywavers (me included) should reflect on whether there's some latent sexism involved in that.
To be fair, if the plant pot actually had a name for his new party, I'd be happy to call it that.
Just another thing that occured to me - just imagine if he got in power in the context of the Rusian expansion.. the mad donkey would probably axe our nuclear deterrant in order to fund giving each man, woman and child an bottle of weak lemon drink, and 300g of mild cheddar.
Just another thing that occured to me - just imagine if he got in power in the context of the Rusian expansion.. the mad donkey would probably axe our nuclear deterrant in order to fund giving each man, woman and child an bottle of weak lemon drink, and 300g of mild cheddar.
Even by the usual standards of Internet whataboutery, that is absolute twaddle.
Yeah, it's just cringe and unfunny. You've either got it or you haven't, and that isn’t it.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders.
Because Zahra Sultana isn't the threat, Corbyn is. And I am not necessarily talking about attitudes on STW but in the wider world.
However dismissive people might try to project themselves Corbyn is real threat to Labour, Sultana isn't. If he decided to remain an independent MP and let her carry on with forming the party on her own there is absolutely no chance that they would have over half a million people signed up already, most people have no idea who Zahra Sultana is.
Whilst he is widely despised by many Corbyn is far more popular than the myths created suggest. Even in his worst general election result Corbyn got three quarters of a million more votes for Labour than Tony Blair managed to get in the 2005 general election. Obviously that didn't translate into seats thanks to our weird electoral system.
Corbyn easily beat the Labour Party candidate in the general election 12 months ago despite years of smears against him
He is massively popular with young voters, more than any high profile politician, do you think many young voters have the slightest idea who Zahra Sultana is ?
He was also massively popular with Labour party members, he won the leadership contest with 60% of the vote which I believe is biggest mandate ever given to a Labour leader. And then a couple of years later following a challenge after years of smears and attacks he increased that to 62%. He was also responsible for a huge surge in Labour Party membership.
And the reason for this popularity? Well it certainly isn't because of his great personality, or his charisma, or his oratorical skills, or a steady hand firmly in control.
He is a piss-poor speaker with little charisma and even less leadership skills.
It is quite simply because of what he argues in favour of and against. It chimes extremely well with a lot of people who are absolutely desperate for change and want to be offered some hope. The complete opposite of Labour under Starmer which guarantees the status quo and offers no hope....... remember "no hope is better than false hope" from Labour? That really isn't very inspirational.
Corbyn's trump card are his policies and that is what makes him a threat to Labour.
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
Actually that was Mandelson and the labour right in England feeding anti Corbyn nonsense to the press and Scottish labour having a pact with the tories which resulted in 10 extra tory MPs which saved Mays government. Without that we would have had a Corbyn PM in a minority government, no brexit and no Johnson
Just for historical accuracy
I bet they do not.
Okay £100 which winner will give to charity of their choice. Key to this is what is the deadline by when the 6MPs are required seeing as party if not officially a party yet? (And obviously there needs to be a party formed otherwise all bets are off)
I never bet for money - the offer is I buy you all the greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat if the new party wins more than 6 seats at the next GE. NO ifs buts and ands - I bet they win less than 6 seats
Well simple electoral maths tells you that many Pele voted for Boris because the alternative was Corbyn.
That's not how maths works. Simple electoral maths tells us that many people voted for Boris instead of Corbyn. The "because" part is a non sequitur you've added yourself, hand-waving it away as "simple maths" doesn't provide us with any sort of reason as to why.
In the last GE it was well discussed before, during and after that many people voted against Sunak rather than for Starmer. I don't recall a similar narrative back in 2019, rather it'd be optimistic for anyone to go up against Boris in a popularity contest.