You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
easily the funniest thing since the anti-Brexit centrists Change UK.
And yet that Daily Express columnist shares your disdain for anti-Brexit centrists.
Funny old world, eh?
And Sir Keir Starmer a committed zionist shares my disdain at the sight of starving children in Gaza.
'Tis indeed a funny ol' world Danny
And yet that Daily Express columnist shares your disdain for anti-Brexit centrists.
Funny old world, eh?
Being committed to rejoining the EU was good.
Being committed to failed neoliberal policies was not and was the primary reason for their rapid disappearance into the abyss.
Labour are currently going through the same process only at a slightly slower pace (whilst also being Brexiteers so at least the Daily Express can approve of that).
And Sir Keir Starmer a committed zionist shares my disdain at the sight of starving children in Gaza
Well, he says he does. And don't forget that "Israel does have that right" to cut off food and water.
Starmer probably means that he doesn't like the sight of children being deliberately starved on the telly.
Which I guess is still something that me and him can both agree on. I tend to look away or flick to another channel.
There is not a chance of them having any influence whatsoever.
Yeah, but that's kind of like saying UKIP had no influence on UK politics because they never won a seat.
Out of all the parties, I would say UKIP have had more influence on the UK's direction of travel than any other party so far this century. They did that by taking votes from the Tories (and later from Labour in their Reform guise) which forced both the main parties to chase UKIP/Reform votes which led to Brexit, which led to Johnson, which led to Starmer's numerous u-turns, etc.
One of the peculiarities of democracies is once you've give a party your vote they have no use for you. It's the people who vote for other parties they are keen to impress.
with 15% of the vote mainly taken from labour
That's a very bold statement. Their support is likely to come from potential Labour, Green, LibDem, Reform, and people who can't be arsed to vote.
I think the fact that they are likely to stop Labour forming a majority government is absolutely brilliant, we have a majority Labour government right now and look at what a shower of ****z they have turned out to be.
Not that Labour stood any chance whatsoever of winning the next general election even before the announcement of the new party, the difference now is that with the new populist party potentially draining support away from Reform there is a greater chance of a rainbow coalition and less of a chance of a Reform-Tory coalition.
British politics is moving forward.
That 15% would not be voting for Labour next time. Labour are no longer the home of the left-wing vote - that was flaking way before this.
How it divies up over the next few years - I think we're in for a ride. Starmer has his work cut out. The Stock market is detached from fundamentals now - that is crashy/toppy territory in my opinion.
But I do know this, if that clown that is Starmer pushed the water nationalisation button he could get a fair few voters back. In fact despite Labour seemingly unable to deliver for public good - there will be a reckoning if Labour jump in to save finance (if and when it happens) and not public services. Voters will absolutely not tolerate 2008 again.
It's going to be rocky if certain scenarios play out.
I think the fact that they are likely to stop Labour forming a majority government is absolutely brilliant, we have a majority Labour government right now and look at what a shower of ****z they have turned out to be.
The bonkers logic of this government was to turn up to the party having used the votes from desperate people - but offering up the worst possible 'solutions' to a desperate society.
The lack of IQ and research in thinking this was a good plan it utterly delusional.
And bad for us all - which at least will create a breeding ground for better progressive solutions.
I bet Jeremy Corbyn's first priority wouldn't be to stick his hand in the sweet jar.
Have you also counted how many chickens he's got based on the number of eggs at his allotment?
Have you even counted how many straws you are desperately clinging to?
Your claim that YourParty is going to get as many votes as Labour at the next General Election is just as far-fetched as TJ's suggestion that they'll be totally irrelevant.
Your claim that YourParty is going to get as many votes as Labour at the next General Election is just as far-fetched as TJ's suggestion that they'll be totally irrelevant.
Don't forget that Starmer has 4 more years left to really **** it up and make sure any people who are still clinging on will have given upon him.
I wouldn't say Starmer is worse than if the tories had remained in power but for people who are not looking that deeply I am not sure they would see or feel any difference. I guess Labour could realise that and get rid of Starmer whose replacement could then get rid of Reeves and Cooper but who knows.
Your claim that YourParty is going to get as many votes as Labour at the next General Election is just as far-fetched as TJ's suggestion that they'll be totally irrelevant.
A lot can happen between now and then. However, just looking at Labour's direction in the polls and the fact Corbyn and Sultana's party's 'sparse' looking website (that I could only find by going via wikipedia) has had 600,000 people sign up to it already, which direction would you say things are going in and how are things going to improve for Labour in the next three years?
I'd say there's about as much chance of Your Party getting as many votes as Labour as there is of Labour winning an overall majority in the next election.
Your Party getting as many votes as Labour
Completely possible. Would probably result in single figure number of “Your” Party MPs, about 150 Labour MPs, fewer Green and LibDem MPs, more SNP MPs … and the achievement of what would otherwise seem impossible… Reform and the Tories as the two largest parties in the UK parliament.
Reform and the Tories as the two largest parties in the UK parliament. Great.
Starmer is 100% responsible for that happening, but must remember Corbyn is the baddy here.
Labour are very much responsible for their own low poll ratings, but Labour coming third at an election on seat count can only really happen with the setting up of this party. Otherwise we’re probably looking at Reform and Labour being the two largest parties on vote share, with Labour likely coming second on vote share but still having the most seats in parliament. Let’s all be honest here, if this new party does well on election day, it will still have very few MPs, little say over how our country is run, yet deliver a gift to the Reform and Tories beyond their wildest dreams. The Conservative Party in particular must be hoping Corbyn goes all the way to the next general election with this, and praying his (sorry, “Your”) party fields candidates in as many seats as possible.
Labour are very much responsible for their own low poll ratings, but Labour coming third at an election on seat count can only really happen with the setting up of this party. Otherwise we’re probably looking at Reform and Labour being the two largest parties on vote share, with Labour likely coming second on vote share but still having the most seats in parliament. Let’s all be honest here, if this new party does well on election day, it will still have very few MPs, little say over how our country is run, yet deliver a gift to the Reform and Tories beyond their wildest dreams. The Conservative Party in particular must be hoping Corbyn goes all the way to the next general election with this, and praying his (sorry, “Your”) party fields candidates in as many seats as possible.
The problem is this isn't a football game. The outcome of an election in terms of seat count (ie your team winning or losing) is not as important as the outcome of an election in terms of the direction of the country.
At the moment Reform are pulling all the strings and dictating the direction of the country. As things stand they are going to continue doing that after the next election whether they get the most seats or not.
A proper left party that is taking votes from Labour and Reform is the only way to start turning the ship around.
And honestly, Reform having any kind of power is Farage's worst nightmare. All the years of telling people how amazing their lives could be would be exposed in a matter of months. Farage is more terrified of Your Party than anyone, both because it offers a proper alternative to Reform and because, like you say, it might actually mean he ends up with some kind of responsibility he can't hide from.
but Labour coming third at an election on seat count can only really happen with the setting up of this party.
I am not sure its that simple. Aside from anything else people could just stay home instead.
Of course Labour could try appealing to those likely to defect to this new party vs their futile quest to appeal to the reform voters.
Cant see Starmer and McSweeney going for that though.
That's a very bold statement. Their support is likely to come from potential Labour, Green, LibDem, Reform, and people who can't be arsed to vote.
I would suggest it’s a very bold statement that Reform voters are likely to move to Corbyn. I’m sure someone will find one but it’s hard to see how
The problem is this isn't a football game.
Quite true. Never said it was. Outcomes do matter though. What’s the outcome of this new party doing “well” at the next general election? Fewer Labour MPs, fewer Green MPs, fewer LibDem MPs, more Conservative MPs, More Reform MPs… and a few MPs from this new party. If you’re hoping that a parliament overwhelmingly staffed with Reform and Tory MPs will change the “direction” of the UK… well, they may do, but not in ways I’d welcome, personally.
There is the chance that this new party might change the “direction” of UK politics in the next few years, and then quietly step back, or fade in importance before a general election, claiming job done. In which case, it might prove to be a powerful force for good. Who knows. I find it far more likely that we’ll have a USA style nonsense whipping up of fear of “the Left” on the way to the next election, strengthening the hand of Reform in many more seats, while also given the Conservative a way back in some areas.
I find it far more likely that we’ll have a USA style nonsense whipping up of fear of “the Left
That has been around in the UK since murdoch took control of the sun, its way too late to put that genie back in the bottle. And your argument against this new party is giving victory to the fear of the left narrative, it is just so illogical, and seeing that Starmer has taken labour comfortably into traditional tory ground, it is something that needs fighting back against rather than further conceding to.
it is something that needs fighting back against rather than further conceding to
Agreed. Labour MPs have forced change on this government on Gaza, WFA & PiP. Plenty more fighting back required though. A new party might help with that. That would be welcome. But we can’t ignore the obvious… splitting the vote at a general election is likely to hand power to Reform and the Tories, and then we’d be relying on THEIR new MPs to hold THEIR government to account: >>shudder<<
is just as far-fetched as TJ's suggestion that they'll be totally irrelevant.
Oh they will be relevant in that they will prevent a labour government without actually getting any significant representation in Parliament
What they will not do is achieve anything positive IMO. They will have no influence on policy, few representatives and will achieve nothing. the history of british politics is littered with splinter parties who make a huge splash and then disappear.
All they will do is ensure our next government is a hard right one
We have a labour government, and it is a right wing labour government. The arguments against having a party on the left are arguments for disenfranchisement and for the right wing narrative.
Peoples lives are getting worse, and labour aren't effecting even the speed at which it is happening, so lets have a democratic opportunity to vote for change.
lets have a democratic opportunity to vote for change
Is the Green Party not on the Left?
It’s great to have more options… under a voting system where eveyone’s vote counts. Under UK Parliamentary elections, the real likely outcome of more fragmentation is obvious.
Agreed. Labour MPs have forced change on this government on Gaza, WFA & PiP. Plenty more fighting back required though. A new party might help with that. That would be welcome. But we can’t ignore the obvious… splitting the vote at a general election is likely to hand power to Reform and the Tories, and then we’d be relying on THEIR new MPs to hold THEIR government to account: >>shudder<<
It absolutely is a danger, but I don't think UKIP/Reform ever actually cost the Tories an election. Despite this they still managed to drag the Tories (and therefore Labour) to where we find ourselves now.
Anything can happen, of course, but if a progressive party can start dragging Labour back (and by extension the Tories) then I don't see how that isn't a good thing.
It is seen rightly or wrongly as only addressing environmental issues, an argument that many of the STW centrists made before the last election to claim a vote for greens is a vote for the Tories, unsurprisingly the very tactic you know want to regurgitate against this new left wing party.
It absolutely is a danger, but I don't think UKIP/Reform ever actually cost the Tories an election.
they cost them the last election - certainly without reform labour would not have had a majority
Anything can happen, of course, but if a progressive party can start dragging Labour back (and by extension the Tories) then I don't see how that isn't a good thing.
I hope it pans out that way.
lets have a democratic opportunity to vote for change
Is the Green Party not on the Left?
It’s great to have more options… under a voting system where eveyone’s vote counts. Under UK Parliamentary elections, the real likely outcome of more fragmentation is obvious.
Scotland and Wales have had non-FPTP voting systems for 20 years, and plenty more options on the left and right. What happened there?
That's a very bold statement. Their support is likely to come from potential Labour, Green, LibDem, Reform, and people who can't be arsed to vote.
I would suggest it’s a very bold statement that Reform voters are likely to move to Corbyn. I’m sure someone will find one but it’s hard to see how
I don't know if you are following events very closely but Reform has apparently doubled their support since the general election a year ago,. where do you think these votes have come from?
These are very obviously not committed Reform voters some of them haven't yet even got round to voting for Reform, they could easily go elsewhere.
Sir Keir Starmer has been desperately trying to woo them back to Labour but it is clear that a majority of Reform supporters think he is a right **** and prefer Jeremy Corbyn to him.
Which of the two do you think is more likely to woo them, Sir Keir Starmer or Jeremy Corbyn?
Is the Green Party not on the Left?
The Green Party's position on many issues is to the left of both the Tories and Labour which must therefore define them as left-wing but they have no ideological commitment to socialism or even social-democracy.
The new party will have at its core left-wing founding principles and aims. I hesitate to use the term socialist although that is how the Morning Star is currently describing the party.
We shall see what their constitution says. I understand that Zahra Sultana's preferred name for the party is "The Left Party" presumably like the Die Linke party in Germany, because she says that it would then say what it does on the tin.
The Green Party is not a socialist party even if it appears to be left-wing when compared to the Tories and Labour, which is presumably why in recent years a growing number of Tory voters have been persuaded to vote for the Greens
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-65502654
unsurprisingly the very tactic you know want to regurgitate against this new left wing party.
Its been amusing seen a bunch of people switching from "we lied about wanting a broad church and now we have power why dont you **** off and start your own party" to "wait we didnt mean that. What we meant was you should shut up and just keep voting for us".
But we can’t ignore the obvious… splitting the vote at a general election is likely to hand power to Reform and the Tories
The vote has potentially been split when the leader of Labour said they could leave if they didn't like it.
Reform were already ahead before any mention of a new party.
Maybe not being very good in power is the central reason people vote for other parties?
Their support is likely to come from potential Labour, Green, LibDem, Reform, and people who can't be arsed to vote.
They will not take green votes at all. A green vote in FPTP is a vote on principle for an ideal. This new group are not a green party and will not attract idealist green voters
The problem in this country is that you need the support of the hate press.
Reform are as good as in , given their non stop blanket coverage.
Starmer is trying to compete with that. What he should really do is give us P.R so we don’t have the rest of my life under ConForm.
Same as Biden should have recognised his shortcomings, Starmer needs to plan for the worst.
They will not take green votes at all.
You think that YouGov have got all wrong ?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1942888227485974562
And since you earlier claimed that the new party will damage Labour am I right in assuming you think their support will come mostly from Labour supporters?
and now we have power why dont you **** off and start your own party"
Keir Starmer could not possibly have been more emphatic here in saying that he had irreversibly changed the party and that even future leaders would not be able to change it back again, and finally he told anyone who wasn't happy with the changes that he had made to leave.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-64649299
Perhaps he should have added...... " But don't start your own political party FFS, just keep voting for me"
They will not take green votes at all.
Oh, they will. The Green Party (of E&W) vote (and MP count) will be halved by this party if it stands candidates in all seats at the next election. The only parties (in E&W) that won’t lose out are Reform and the Conservatives… Corbyn has the chance to gift them a general election.
Still trying to blame Corbyn for Starmers complete **** up and swing to the right. How about the centrists take a bit of responsibility for the mess they have created, you know like they hypocritically demand everyone else do.
The only parties (in E&W) that won’t lose out are Reform and the Conservatives… Corbyn has the chance to gift them a general election.
So, accepting this for the sake of argument, what should he do, if he believes (as do a lot of us) that Labour and Conservative are driving the country off a cliff ?
No one holds more responsibility for the creation of the Corbyn-led party than Keir Starmer.
If Starmer had not expelled and driven out left-wingers from the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn would today be a Labour backbench MP and no one would be talking about this new left-wing party.
And we would be up Shit Creek without a paddle. So for that very reason I am hugely grateful to Keir Starmer and for what I hope will be his lasting legacy. It is amazing what a clueless **** who relies on others to tell him what to do can achieve 😊
Corbyn has the chance to gift them a general election.
Only Starmer has that power within his gift. Even Blair recognized the importance of at least paying lip service the the left.
Jesus. Think Polanski and his supporters need to get rid of this lot or get out and join up with Corbyn. I’ve never seen such vacuous drivel in 30 years of following politics.
https://twitter.com/elliechowns/status/1952761800597889311?s=46&t=LtLH_brmYFWrcPalxgEeWA
I’ve never seen such vacuous drivel in 30 years of following politics.
They sound just like me when I was a teenager. Most people initially enter politics for purely emotional reasons, whether it be anger, compassion, or whatever. Hopefully those emotions are eventually accompanied by some solid ideological grounding.
That pair don't seem to have reached that stage yet, some never do, and they are still at the naive idealist stage driven primarily by emotions, it would appear.
I suspect the Green Party is dominated by people like that, middle-class idealists with very sound moral values but a lack of an ideological commitment and application.
Which makes the case for an ideological left-wing party even stronger. Although personally I think Jeremy Corbyn is pisspoor on ideology for a man of his age. He still often comes across as a hopelessly naive idealist with bollocks about "kinder politics" and all that ridiculous shite.
Hopefully the new party will attract plenty of more hard-nosed operators. I am sure it will.
I find this so funny that you think the green party - a long established party with principles that are solid and often at odds with more traditional parties should join with this grouping and lose their identity.
I ask again - what is in this for the greens? I can see zero advantage to the greens from doing this and all I see you wanting this new grouping to ride on the coattails of the greens.
Surely the answer is they should join the greens if they are truely in step with a green agenda?
The Green Party (as it is now called) has been around for 40 years and I can't see them getting past the support they have now. If you actually want to achieve anything you need to be at more than a handful of MPs after 40 years.
Polanski would be better off being leader of "your party" and the sort of person who would do a lot better than Corbyn who as we know was useless as a leader, dealing with questions etc,. Polanski is very quick to answer and closes the questions down well.
I ask again - what is in this for the greens?
I guess it depends on what the Green Party wants? If it wants to be a nice fluffy home for comfortably-off middle class liberals to wallow in their own virtue signalling as Chowns and Ramsay appear to want then the answer is nothing. If it wants to be a real force for change which challenges the establishment and status quo as Polanski (and the vast majority of green party members if you beleive the polls) seems to want then there's a lot to be gained by an alliance with other leftwing parties who want to do the same. I guess we'll get that answer in September when the leadership election results are announced.
Polanski would be better off being leader of "your party"
Yeah it's highly unfortunate that the best young leftwing political communicator is in a party which has achieved almost nothing in 40 years. I really hope he can find a way to unite with other parties once he wins the Green Party leadership. He should probably lead that alliance but I doubt the likes of Sultana will be able to swallow their pride to allow it to happen.
then there's a lot to be gained by an alliance with other leftwing parties who want to do the same.
What is to be gained? You keep on making this claim but not substantiating this. I see nothing to be gained only losses
What is to be gained?
The greens have historically failed (miserably!) to capture the votes and support of working class people who form the majority of the electorate. To break through and achieve real success they need to do that, and an alliance with more traditionally leftwing parties rooted in the labour movement will potentially allow them to do that. Or they can carry on wallowing in their nice fluffy virtue signalling bubble where they talk a good game safe in the knowledge they'll never have to implement it.
So nothing to substantiate this claim then. Remember I am in Scotland where the greens have been in government and are predicted to double their vote share and seats.
come on - you must have some concrete thing they will gain by this alliance? Has anyone in the greens made any statements about it?
So nothing to substantiate this claim then. Remember I am in Scotland
We're not talking about Scotland, we're talking about UK general elections. The only substantiation you need is 5 MPs in 40 years of campaigning and almost no material influence on UK policy. The Greens say they want to make climate change the overriding priority of UK politics. I totally agree with that aim but they don't seem to want to make the changes which will enable them to do that. Hopefully we'll start to see some of those changes when Polanski wins the leadership and breaks them out of their nice comfortable bubble.
come on - you must have some concrete thing they will gain by this alliance?
You don't think the support of a new party with over 600k members/supporters with vast campaigning experience is concrete? In just a few weeks Your Party (got I hate that name) has had more media coverage and popular interest than the Greens have achieved in decades.
Reactionary rightwing meme-bot is back. 🙄
You don't think the support of a new party with over 600k members/supporters with vast campaigning experience is concrete? In just a few weeks Your Party (got I hate that name) has had more media coverage and popular interest than the Greens have achieved in decades.
I don't think an alliance with a rag tag bunch of failed politicians who have zero chance of doing anything politically bar ensuring a hard right government has any advantage to the greens at all. It would mean abandoning being a "green" party completely and would gain them nothing apart from a fast trip to political oblivion.
All I see is is an attempt for the new group to get the Greens political visibility and experience. the greens have 60 000 actual paid up members which is a lot more than the new group have ( zero) and have decades of political experience and have made large strides in pushing forward a green agenda and getting it adopted by other parties. the greens have an ever increasing vote and political visibility
What do the greens say to this proposal?
don't know if you are following events very closely but Reform has apparently doubled their support since the general election a year ago,. where do you think these votes have come from?
These are very obviously not committed Reform voters some of them haven't yet even got round to voting for Reform, they could easily go elsewhere.
Sir Keir Starmer has been desperately trying to woo them back to Labour but it is clear that a majority of Reform supporters think he is a right **** and prefer Jeremy Corbyn to him.
Which of the two do you think is more likely to woo them, Sir Keir Starmer or Jeremy Corbyn?
Your own post showing the YouGov poll shows that Corbyn’s isn’t going to attract people from reform. It’s getting them from the Tories. Therefore Corbyn’s isn’t going to do nothing to reduce the reform vote so will only take votes from labour, greens or maybe Lib Dem’s
There are many people on here who seem to be basing their whole argument on the assumption that “Your Party” ever becomes a political force with any influence or standing that would make then attractive to another party. I know they have had a lot of people sign up for an email but I imagine a good number of them come from the other party hqs and constuency party machines just because they can. How many of them turn into voters is a completely different question
I admit it is largely based on hope, some of us still have some hope left
All I see is is an attempt for the new group to get the Greens political visibility and experience.
Where have you seen that? I haven't seen or heard anyone from Your Party even mention the Greens. The only thing I've heard is a single comment from Corbyn in an interview that he'd be open to working with Polanski in future if he wins the Green Party leadership. Honestly TJ there's no real need for such factional paranoia. I'm pretty sure that if it gets that far Your Party will be focusing its attention on Labour and Reform not the Green Party.
Ah - I have seen this mooted green / your party alliance promoted so much on here I thought it was something they were working towards. Not that its just a figment of the imagination on here.
He still often comes across as a hopelessly naive idealist with bollocks about "kinder politics"
I had to read that three times before I worked out you meant "more kind" rather than "child-like."
I find this so funny that you think the green party - a long established party with principles that are solid and often at odds with more traditional parties should join with this grouping and lose their identity.
I ask again - what is in this for the greens?
Votes?
Sorry if there's an equivalent of Godwin's Law which states that every protracted conversation eventually tends towards brexit but, isn't this basically one of the big arguments we had for Remain? If you don't like what's going on in the EU Parliament then you're in a stronger position to effect change if you're directly involved rather than watching from the sidelines being told what to do.
Mind you, Clegg's Lib Dems probably had the same idea and that didn't end too well for them...
"The self-serving, self-entitled liberal elite who have let our country down time after time are now on notice their day is almost done," he said.
Rupert Matthews - recent Tory defector to Reform.
I guess it depends on what the Green Party wants? If it wants to be a nice fluffy home for comfortably-off middle class liberals to wallow in their own virtue signalling as Chowns and Ramsay appear to want then the answer is nothing.
Dazh - radical leftwinger of this parish.
🤔
Not that its just a figment of the imagination on here.
It's a discussion on here yes, but that is all. Point still stands though that this factional paranoia is unnecessary. For once Binners might actually be justified in posting his PFJ meme.
What is to be gained? You keep on making this claim but not substantiating this. I see nothing to be gained only losses
What's to be lost? You keep on making, etc etc.
You mentioned their "identity." Their identity - IMHO - is what's holding them back. The populace see them as a one-policy party, and whilst I wish that it weren't the case it's a policy that most of the electorate don't give a shit about. People turning out to vote want more doctors and fewer brown people, not saving pandas.
This is (one reason) why the likes of Reform are gaining traction. Their identity is new, they're not carrying decades or even centuries of baggage. We're in one of the most turbulent political times in my living memory and yet still some - most? - people vote for little reason other than "that's who I've always voted for." Someone decided that they were Team Red or Team Blue when they were 20, forty years later they're still ticking the same box they always have because that's who they are, that's their "identity" if you like. People who have never voted Green by now almost certainly never will.
If it were possible to disband the lot, no more Labour, no more Conservative, etc etc and have them all start again from scratch with new parties, new names, new policies... If we were to get rid of a lifetime's worth of rotting inertia, I reckon we'd see a very different political landscape.
Criticise him all you like but Farage - or at least, his team who do the actual work - are masters of this, he worked out years ago that "this is all shit, let's find someone else to blame and then try something different" is an incredibly powerful motivator. Even the name, Reform, is a masterstroke because who doesn't want reform?
Remember I am in Scotland
So why do you care about English politics? Again I wish it weren't the case, but part of the reason Scottish Independence is as popular as it is must surely be because no-one south of Hadrian's Wall gives a shit about the place. Hell, most of Westminster thinks the country stops somewhere between Bristol and King's Lynn.
If it were possible to disband the lot, no more Labour, no more Conservative, etc etc and have them all start again from scratch with new parties, new names, new policies... If we were to get rid of a lifetime's worth of rotting inertia, I reckon we'd see a very different political landscape.
That would be good. There are a lot of people who still trot out the "they are all the same" and I can't blame them when we now have a Labour Party that really is the same as the Tories, in spirit and action.
Of course people will find out that while they thought Reform were different they are also the same but it could be a step on the way.
why would the greens get more votes in an alliance with "your party" ?
An alliance with your party would obviously involve them not standing candidates against each other, and joint campaigning on an agreed manifesto. In places where the Greens are strong they wouldn't face losing votes to YP and would gain more by breaking into voter groups which have traditionally been beyond them. Or they could stay separate and face losing lots of votes to YP instead. Seems pretty obvious to me what's in their best interests.
Remember I am in Scotland
I had almost forgotten.......... you posted about half a dozen posts without once mentioning Scotland !
He still often comes across as a hopelessly naive idealist with bollocks about "kinder politics"
I had to read that three times before I worked out you meant "more kind" rather than "child-like."
What Corbyn means......"Kinder politics" was me quoting Corbyn, he was banging on about it ten years ago and he is still banging on about it now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34392427
Daft ****
why would the greens get more votes in an alliance with "your party" ?
Maths? If 10,000 people would vote for the Green Party and 10,000 other people would vote for Your Party, that's 20,000 people potentially voting for Your Green Party. Even if the Venn diagram isn't a single circle, two parties pooling resources surely has to have a degree of crossover.
Do you suppose they'd get fewer votes in some form of coalition?
"Kinder politics" was me quoting Corbyn,
I wasn't criticising, it just amused me.
I know they have had a lot of people sign up for an email but I imagine a good number of them come from the other party hqs and constuency party machines just because they can.
It's a bit more than "signing up for an email", they will have full rights of a party member, eg decided policies, aims, constitution, leaders, etc
And your point would be more valid if for example something like 5k had registered with the new party. Sure some Daily Telegraph reporters will have registered simply because they can but when you are talking about 650k they are hardly going to inflate the figures.
I believe that 650k is more than the total combined membership of Labour, the Tories, and Reform.
And a lot of them will be highly experienced activists thanks to Sir Keir Starmer's expulsions, suspensions, deselections, and general hostile environment, within the Labour Party.
No one is more responsible for the creation of this new left-wing party than Sir Keir Starmer, except possibly Morgan McSweeney the man pulling Starmer's strings.
Do you suppose they'd get fewer votes in some form of coalition?
Yes - because they would no longer be a party of ideals and true to their roots. they would also not be standing in half the target seats I imagine. Again ( and I know you lot hate the comparisons to Scotland but its a example) in coialition with the SNP they lost votes, now they are out of coalition they are gaining votes
the reason I mention Scotland is that often what happens here sho0ws potential for what happens south of the border. We have had 5 party politics here for years. there are plenty of parallels that can be illustrative
Do you suppose they'd get fewer votes in some form of coalition?
Yes - because they would no longer be a party of ideals and true to their roots.
That is quite a remarkable comment from someone so obsessively pro-EU! Are not most, if not all, EU member states governed by coalition governments? And many of those coalitions involving the Greens. Are we to assume these are all parties with no ideals and roots?
Being part of a substantial UK political bloc of say up to 20% of the share of the vote is far more likely to make Green Party candidates appear credible in the eyes of voters. It is also far more likely to create a situation where Green Party "ideals" can directly influence government policy.
Given the right conditions it is feasible that the Secretary of State for the Environment after the next general election could be a member of the Green Party.
It certainly seems more likely than the possibility of a one-party majority government. All the opinions polls for many months now have suggested that no party will win the next general election and a coalition government is currently certain.
Obviously right now it looks a Reform-Tory coalition but a substantial boost from a Left-Green perspective could change the dynamics significantly.
the reason I mention Scotland is that often what happens here sho0ws potential for what happens south of the border. We have had 5 party politics here for years. there are plenty of parallels that can be illustrative
There is a reality distortion field at work that means English lefties wilfully ignore what has happened in Scotland with PR and multiparty politics over the last two decades. This is despite the fact that the Scottish and UK electorates are pretty similar, for obvious reasons. Instead, there's a load of burbling about Spain and South Africa.
That is quite a remarkable comment from someone so obsessively pro-EU! Are not most, if not all, EU member states governed by coalition governments? And many of those coalitions involving the Greens. Are we to assume these are all parties with no ideals and roots?
Being part of a substantial UK political bloc of say up to 20% of the share of the vote is far more likely to make Green Party candidates appear credible in the eyes of voters. It is also far more likely to create a situation where Green Party "ideals" can directly influence government policy.
As I have pointed out many times there is a huge difference between building a coalition after an election in a PR system to a pre election pact in FPTP
In the former you stand on your own platform in all seats, get what representation you get and then create a joint platform for government using aspects of the partners platforms, in the latter you stand on a joint platform in a limited number of seats so have to completely endorse all aspects of that joint platform even when its not your parties policy
Its totally different.
What you are proposing is that an established party with its own core vote and identity has to give away much of that to stand with a new party of uncertain influence and to agree a joint platform to stand on which will certainly contain elements that are against the core ideals of the greens
an established party with its own core vote and identity has to give away much of that
The Your Party website statement and the 2024 Green Party domestic policy manifesto are less than millimetres apart. Both call for nationalisation of utilities and transport (Rail) investment in housing, better investment in the NHS via more heavy taxation of fossil fuel. They're not giving anything away, in fact they're completely aligned.
Apart from on the core Green issues
But if they are so aligned then why do these folk in the new party not just jo0in the greens?
If they are completely aligned then there's no value to the Greens in having any sort of pre-election pack as folk who want those policies/ideas can just vote Green. Unless, of course, it's also down to personalities. I mean, how many folk can even name the leader of the Green Party?
Still havent seen a good answer for why you'd vote for this party rather than the greens.