Forum menu
I think your problem there is the very large gap between what I’ve written, and what you imagine I’ve written.
No problem here, I've got you pretty well figured.
Hang on a minute?
Comrade Jezza is now a lackey and tool of the establishment? A mere mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex?
Who would you have as the next Labour leader Daz? The reactivated cadaver of Che Guervara? 😂
Of course: criticise the flag waving nonentity and you’re a cultist. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you sound?
So, you have nothing else then? Thought not.
No problem here, I’ve got you pretty well figured.
I think we all have. I reckon it’s Len McClusky and I claim my manufactured backstory of having once worked on the docks
Who do you think?
Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you’re not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
I agree with this. And I think it might be why I find this thread so addictively depressing.
It's the utter lack of hope or belief in anything. That ordinary people can achieve nothing.
That anyone who believes or hopes in any kind of significant change is a naive idiot.
That we should accept all this and treat politics like football - support the red one or the blue one.
No problem here, I’ve got you pretty well figured.
If it helps you to believe that, crack on.
So, you have nothing else then? Thought not.
The only surprise there is that you had a thought.
No denial that you are Len McClusky though?
Makes you think...
I find this thread so addictively depressing
This sums up my feelings so precisely...
Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you’re not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
At last somebody on this thread that gets it.
Power swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it. We are ran by a privately educated political elite. The system is devised and ruled over by Westminster to provide one of two possible outcomes, non of which will give us what we really need to move forward.
No binbins,Corbz clearly played on the same battle lines. Same since the 70s as you would say.
A new set is needed. eg Federal UK, ambitious energy/transport infrastructure ideas, tax reforms.
Inbred456
Free MemberPower swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it.
Except for the bit about "spendy Labour"- it's bollocks. Since the war, and pre-Covid, Tory governments have borrowed an average of £33.6bn per year and Labour has borrowed an average of £28bn per year. Just one metric of course but they mostly work out about the same.
I was being a bit pedantic.
I know it’s a perception that is really meaningless, nevertheless it’s one that the electorate buys into. Meanwhile nothing really changes.
Dodds doing her best to move the debate away from labours pathetic opposition of the police bill to their pathetic support of the nurses. I have to admit I find it all quite funny. F****** clueless the lot of them!
https://twitter.com/anneliesedodds/status/1371914832618917888?s=12
A spendy government is a good thing. This is where the narrative needs to be rewritten. Government spending is a private sector surplus.
As long as the spendy bit benefits the population in a progressive way it's good loosely speaking.
The Tories are very spendy but actually terrible with the cash (as has been evidenced). Their relationship with the BoE is laughable too - denying they don't have a direct connection to it. Interest rates have nowhere to really go - the whole BoE way of doing this is a bouncy castle industry overseen by a Governor clown out of touch with the business he is in. The Establishment is hard to crack despite massive levels of incompetence.
US of A have gone full in with their stimulus of direct cash. We need something like this. And is pure MMT - almost accepted there. Although I don't doubt the Republicans will move back to a position of balancing the budget and irresponsible spending rhetoric even though Trump wasn't shy with the purse at all.
As an aside I've noticed more and more folks like Ian Dunt and James O'Brien seemed to be shocked recently how the Tories have ended up like Tories. Ian Dunt in particular getting annoyed at the bill 'now' that was in the Tories 2019 cheat sheet.
Both of them still love to give Corbyn a good kicking. One day some Centrists will accept their part in the process of what could've have been instead of what we got.
They also might understand that Centrism already has plenty of failed parties they could look to instead of this downward trajectory of Labour they're so keen on. Although to be fair most of Centrism's failed babies have gone on to do nicely out of the corporate sector. Chris Leslie I'm looking at you.
Power swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it.
Nope. And the majority of voters don't care enough to even want that to change. The Green party is the most radical out of any parties that could realistically be voted for (have enough candidates) and they are not exactly radical.
They are however sat at 5% and don't seem to be increasing even though we are all supposed to be more and more interested in the sort of intentions they have.
Isn't self-employment a wonderful thing. Uber understood that. They might be objectively working class but can be easily misguided into a lumpen proletarian hatred of socialists, trades unions and demonstrations. Even when they're on their arse. Triples all round!
Isn’t self-employment a wonderful thing. Uber understood that. They might be objectively working class but can be easily misguided into a lumpen proletarian hatred of socialists, trades unions and demonstrations. Even when they’re on their arse. Triples all round!
Medieval lords and landowners understood it too. Keep the serfs in perpetual poverty and insecurity and they'll beat their contemporaries to death to go up in your estimation and earn a few beans.
Do we have another imaginary dividing line to try and wedge open? The self-employed against employees? Tedious.
It might be tedious but it is important. The self employed are much more open to exploitation but also less likely to develop a 'collective conscience' and therefore engage in collective action. A fragmented workforce is much more profitable and it increases poverty and fs their future, but who cares? Political leadership should embrace people in all sorts of working arrangements with collective goals that will benefit the majority. ' The self-employed against the..... employees?' is exactly what they want and what we see.
less likely to develop a ‘collective conscience’
Which protests have you been on where the self employed have been absent? What evidence do you have that the attitudes you claim the self-employed have are any less prevalent among the directly employed?
I sincerely hope they weren't absent. Just need more.
NB. Instructive to watch World in Action's 'The Demonstration' (YT) in terms of motives, policing, reportage. Things don't change that much.
Which protests have you been on where the self employed have been absent?
I've been on a couple.
I find your posts, on the whole, pretty well reasoned.
But if you honestly think that the steady erosion of employment arrangements hasn't also eroded solidarity among the workforce you are sorely mistaken.
Be it going from employed to self-employed or properly contracted to zero hours or 'flexible' contracts (with all the flexibility on the part of the employer), you would have hoped this would create some kind of collective anger against those that are actively doing this to them. But no, actually what it has (entirely predictably) created is resentment between individuals who are being deliberately put into competition with each other and resentment towards those that have escaped the rats in a sack trap - for now.
This is the logical extension of the 'free market' nutjobs. Everything is a competition and it is every man for himself*. Throw in a bit of 'othering' (remainers, elites, foreigners, ethnic minorities) and you have a bitter and toxic mix to drive through nasty policies.
*Except if you have money to start with. Then you can reap the rewards of this employment market by gladiatorial 'sport'.
I was talking about this…
Isn’t self-employment a wonderful thing. Uber understood that. They might be objectively working class but can be easily misguided into a lumpen proletarian hatred of socialists, trades unions and demonstrations. Even when they’re on their arse.
These attitudes are being encouraged, and are on the rise, but I haven’t seen any evidence rather they are more prevalent in the self-employed than the employed.
But no, actually what it has (entirely predictably) created is resentment between individuals who are being deliberately put into competition with each other and resentment towards those that have escaped the rats in a sack trap – for now.
I agree. Hence my comment about driving open an imaginary divide between the self-employed and the employed. No matter what your employment status, you can be exposed to the pressures of work and income insecurity, and be encouraged to blame ‘others’ for that.
Dubious of that poll el-bent, but 1% for NHS staff who have run themselves into the ground this last year has gone down like a bag of cold sick with nearly everyone I know, however they vote. That could swing the polls a bit. Doubt it or anything else will bring the parties neck any neck again anytime soon though. Vaccine bounce and opening for summer will keep the governing party rising high.
It looks like the vaccine bounce has reached its limit for now
I still think Starmer is a passenger until that is played out
There will be a rise as we open up more & Johnson has learnt not to overpromise
I wonder if there is a ceiling on those that will simply never vote for Johnson, which opens up a route for Starmer
The self-employed and people on awful contracts are in a position where it's hard to organise trades unions and progress, which is the intention. I happened to be in Sheffield during the 2017 election and the self-employed Uber drivers were buzzing about Corbyn. Uber's been forced into new contractual arrangements, brilliant, people can fight back whatever their circumstances but zero hours and self-employment aren't designed to make it easy.
Union Jacks on every public building, every day. 'Labour indicated its support for the plan.'
#HeIsATory trending on Twitter
I still think Starmer is a passenger until that is played out
Pretty much where I’m at.
That’s a very large points gain for Labour. Not sure I’d trust that.
“ Gimme a country that's red, white and blue
Gimme the British way, honest and true
Gimme the chance to be one of the few
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme
Gimme a nation where people are free
Free to do and free to be
Free to screw you before you screw me
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme, 'cause
I'm alright
I'm alright
Union Jack
(Fly the flag, fly the flag)
Gimme a Britain that's got back the Great
A race of winners not cramped by the State
And only the helpless get left at the gate
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme, 'cause
I'm alright
I'm alright
Union Jack
(Fly the flag, fly the flag) “
A true blue brash fat greasy greedy Tory with serial trouser transgressions will always joyfully thrash a wannabe or pretend-to-be-to-get-elected Tory. Bash the animals, cut taxes, party of business, 1%, fly the f flag, and they're still a chasm behind.
A regular on here started the thread 'Why would you vote Labour?', it certainly makes you think.
I see the usual suspects have got #StarmerOut trending on Twitter because of his refusal to back the Liverpool mayor and the corrupt councillors .
With whats come out already - and it looks like theres lots more to come - there's fraud and corruption on a massive scale, going back decades. What the hell is he supposed to do? Defend a load of people who've clearly been trousering backhanders for dodgy property deals where the amounts of taxpayers money going missing are huge.
It's no wonder he scuppered the existing candidate shortlist. It looks like they were all up to their necks in it
https://twitter.com/KevinPMeagher/status/1374774680066871302?s=20
Union Jacks on every public building, every day. ‘Labour indicated its support for the plan.’
Only one? Why do they hate this country?
Don’t worry, they’ve changed the guidance to allow more than one flag to be raised on the same pole. See, they can think about the details of the implementation of rules when it really matters (to their political games).
“ Gimme a country that’s red, white and blue
Gimme the British way, honest and true
Gimme the chance to be one of the few
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme
Gimme a nation where people are free
Free to do and free to be
Free to screw you before you screw me
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme, ’cause
I’m alright
I’m alright
Union Jack
(Fly the flag, fly the flag)
Gimme a Britain that’s got back the Great
A race of winners not cramped by the State
And only the helpless get left at the gate
Gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme-gimme, ’cause
I’m alright
I’m alright
Union Jack
(Fly the flag, fly the flag) “
SLF - nice, one of my all time favourite bands... best bit on this thread IMHO
Fantastic idea! Put the boot into Liverpool, much bigger deal than the PPE scandal, Serco, contracts down the pub, 1%, moon shots, satellites, 40 hospitals, extra 40% for atom bombs, herd immunity, UC.
It clearly takes quite a while for the penny to drop, these Islington millionaires are not going to fight your corner.
Once again people within the labour party have gift-wrapped a suitable distraction for the Torys. I don't think the irony is lost on anyone that its Robert Jenrick that's levelling accusations of dodgy property deals and backhanders. You couldn't make it up
But Starmer can't possibly do anything but distance himself from Liverpools bent councillors.
What would you have him do? Line up and defend them as they all get charged with bribery, corruption and fraud?
That'd be. a great look, wouldn't it?
Islington millionaires
Love how Johnson's attack lines on Starmer get dripped out by people to the left of the Labour leader. It's almost as if his team really know what they're doing with this divide and rule stuff, isn't it.
Someone please wake me up when Starmer actually opposes something. PMQ is a joke now - Johnson is running rings round him - saying a silly joke, lying, and Starmer just sits with his schoolteacher po face doing nothing. Hopeless.
Someone please wake me up when Starmer actually opposes something.
You want him to oppose this?
Seriously?
Have you actually read anything about what the Labour party councillors in Liverpool have been up to?
Someone please wake me up when Starmer actually opposes something.
He's "opposing" things the government do all the time. He's not going to oppose flying the Union Flag... because even those of us with a sixth former's understanding of politics can see the letters T R A P printed all over that one. As for Liverpool, what exactly do you want to happen? Labour dropped and replaced everyone on the mayoral candidate short list for good reason. This was always coming down the track. A Labour government would have had to act as well.
Islington? Hodge and Starmer and at one time Blair.
Have you actually read anything about what the Labour party councillors in Liverpool have been up to?
Binners is on the money here. This particular instance is no place for "football supporter" politics. The Labour-run planning office has been bent for years and years, and there are on going investigations from the SFO to local cops to internal civil servant reviews, they all point to that facts that various Labour councilors have been lining their own and their mates pockets with handfuls cash stuffed into brown envelopes, the cops recently confiscated nearly £4K from one.
How else is Starmer (a QC) supposed to react to that sort of criminal activity exactly? Certainly not by standing in solidarity with Labour comrades (who're on the fiddle), certainly not by supporting a candidate groomed by the very folk who're being investigated.
The Torys will make political gains from this simply because; in this instance, they legitimately can.
My wife's family are all embarrassed by the council farce.
Theyre all labour voting scousers and would still vote Labour regardless
They all just want the constant exposure of council scandals in the local paper to stop.
Islington? Hodge and Starmer and at one time Blair.
Starmer lives in his constituency, not Islington.
It was Johnson who lived in Islington 'till he got his new free digs as PM.
At least you're one of many people enjoying his "joke" approach to PMQs.
The "Have I Got News For You" approach to chamber politics.
And he's not just aiming to undermine Starmer with the Tory voting base, far from it.
Feeding the anti-Starmer noise is currently key to his divide and rule winning ways.
Clever stuff that only the uber clown could sell so well to his opponents.
Apologies, flat-fronted Georgian three storey terrace in... Camden. Quite different. Blair used to have stone lions outside his place.
What the hell has Tony Blairs stone lions got to do with anything?
You haven't answered the question as to what you'd have Starmer do about the situation in Liverpool? Support them? Back them? Regardless of what they've done?
Thats whats being suggested by all the usual lefty suspects. Tribalism takes priority over criminality.
This is a proper hospital pass he's just received from the Labour party in Liverpool. There's is no good solution. It's now about damage limitation. Its an absolute gift to the Tory's
So what would you have him do?
He could fully accept that the situation in Liverpool is unacceptable and needs dealing with but also point out that it's a bit rich being lectured about corruption by the Tories after the PPE etc scandals and by Robert Jenrick in particular.
Or maybe he has done that, I dunno. I'm losing interest tbh.
Can you not see the headlines 'LABOUR CORRUPTION, TU PALS, SCOUSE SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH, MILITANT...' and Starmer is squeaking 'me too, me too!'
?
Can you decipher that for us into something comprehensible?
What would you have him do?
Parachute in ex-councillors from places like Hackney, to stand as Mayor?
I know Jon Burke. He's a ****.
The narrative will be on corrupt Labour politicians, scouse accents (not universally popular in eg Manchester but I love it), connections with trades unionism, 'anything but-Corbyn' substituted by 'anything but Labour', they can't even clutch their bums type carp and Starmer goes along with it.
I do wonder whether Starmer's ambition is to reduce the membership size by eradicating anything challenging, use the press and ad agencies to get your message across because all the leafleteers have left or been expelled, hobble the local parties over nominating candidates, and just become a party of self-recruiting chums in parliament backed by big business. It's a bit difficult to see it any other way.
You should write a book. Your imagination is wasted here.
The narrative will be on corrupt Labour politicians, scouse accents (not universally popular in eg Manchester but I love it), connections with trades unionism, ‘anything but-Corbyn’ substituted by ‘anything but Labour’, they can’t even clutch their bums type carp and Starmer goes along with it.
If thats the narrative, thats because Labour councilors have made that the narrative with their actions over decades. Their accents and where they're from isn't the point. What you are suggesting is that he oppose it in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because its the Tory's that have imposed it? And in doing so, show that the labour party nationally endorses endemic bribery, corruption, fraud and witness intimidation amongst its councillors?
Right-ho. Glad we've cleared that up.
use the press and ad agencies to get your message across because all the leafleteers have left or been expelled
Leafleteers? Your minds going to be totally blown when you hear about what people are using to communicate political messages nowadays.
You haven’t answered the question as to what you’d have Starmer do about the situation in Liverpool? Support them? Back them? Regardless of what they’ve done?
Joe Anderson and anyone proven to have indulged in corruption should be unceremoniously kicked out the party and prosecuted. Anderson is a classic case of the corruption which is endemic when local labour parties have hegemonic control of a city. The same is largely true in Manchester but they long ago learned the tory trick of hiding their corruption behind the veil of quid pro quo. Clearly their Liverpool colleagues weren't sent on the training course.
Was that what you were expecting me to say as a 'lefty usual suspect'?
A Hartlepool councillor has just been expelled for criticising the nominations procedure, on and on.
Blimey, I wish it was my imagination instead of bitter experience. Leaflets involve talking to people and being right there in the community.
Craig Hannaway? He’s been vocally supportive of the “Workers Party GB” since being overlooked as a Labour candidate to be the MP, hasn’t he? Labour tend to expel anyone seen to encourage support for another party (something I strongly disagree with as it happens).
The problem for Starmer in Liverpool is that rather than being seen to be rightfully removing corrupt councillors, it will simply be seen as supporting the tory takeover of a democratically elected labour council. What he needs to be doing is showing that he'll support the local party by allowing them to select new candidates who voters can then elect confident that they are not corrupt. Instead he'll impose new candidates centrally, as he did with the mayoral election and confirm the suspicions that he doesn't believe in party democracy, resulting in more infighting and division. It's a funny way to unify the party that's for sure.
Did you follow the mayoral candidate selection fiasco? There was a short list of candidates all close to Anderson and this mess. A new “centrally” imposed list was drawn up to replace it, with other local councillors more recently elected on it, including one very vocally supportive of Corbyn and critical of Starmer’s handling of him. It’s a good list of candidates with local support, but not connected directly to the alleged corruption. There was uproar. It had to be done.
What he needs to be doing is showing that he’ll support the local party by allowing them to select new candidates who voters can then elect confident that they are not corrupt.
And when the local party select candidates that are part of the old corrupt circle-jerk (which is what they did), what then?
What's happening in Liverpool is pretty much what killed Labour in Scotland - elected members imagining that they can get away with pretty much anything because people will always vote for them. Except eventually the alternative becomes less unpalatable, and all that's left is the long lingering taint around the Labour party.
What he needs to be doing is showing that he’ll support the local party by allowing them to select new candidates who voters can then elect confident that they are not corrupt.
Confident they are not corrupt? Really? I think you can be pretty much 100% certain that they are thoroughly corrupt
The candidates put forward by Liverpool labour party had all been closely involved with those accused and arrested of massive scale fraud, corruption and witness intimidation for decades, meaning they were either entirely complicit in it, or blind and completely numb to what was going on around them.
Neither is a particularly strong recommendation, is it?
You're seriously suggesting that the national party leadership should have let that go ahead, and watch as the 'new' candidates are seen by everyone as a continuation of the same old rotten regime?
You lot really need to get out of your paranoid, conspiracy-theory mindset. Once again: Starmer had little choice but to put a stop to it. Its not some mad conspiracy, its doing what needs to be done to restore some faith that the local Labour party doesn't just represent a self-serving and corrupt gravy train.
And when the local party select candidates that are part of the old corrupt circle-jerk (which is what they did), what then?
Well this goes to the heart of the problem with party politics, and it's why I keep sayiing we need a new, more democratic, and more transparent approach. Starmer isn't solving any problems, he's just doing the same as the local party by selecting his own preferred candidates. Why not open up the selection process in some form of primary or some other process? These candidates will be representing local communities, so give those communities a say.
You lot really need to get out of your paranoid, conspiracy-theory mindset. Once again: Starmer had little choice but to put a stop to it
FFS did you even read what I said above about corrupt councillors/members being ejected?
Why not open up the selection process in some form of primary or some other process?
Given that the elections are about 6 weeks away, what new system for selecting candidates do you suggest they put in place?
The Liverpool Labour party has been more than happy with the process up until this point as it continued to deliver power to their corrupt cabal
FFS did you even read what I said above about corrupt councillors/members being ejected?
Yes. You then went on to suggest that their corrupt mates be allowed to be installed in their place
Starmer isn’t solving any problems, he’s just doing the same as the local party by selecting
his own preferred candidatespeople who aren't bent
FTFY
Given that the elections are about 6 weeks away
But you said this has been going on for decades so presumably Starmer knew about this long ago?
I'd imagine he's had a busy enough year dealing with the car crash he inherited, while in the middle of a global pandemic, without having to devise a new electoral system because of what a bunch of Deggsies bent mates are getting up to on Merseyside
You then went on to suggest that their corrupt mates be allowed to be installed in their place
No I said that actions should be taken to uphold party democracy whilst at the same time rooting out anyone proven to be corrupt via usual due process. All you're doing is taking a nakedly partisan positon in order to paint anyone who might be slightly to the left of your liberal democrat fantasies as corrupt. As if those on the right of the party have never indulged in a bit of self-interested power brokering. Or have you forgotten the antics of Mandelson, Byers et al?
One of the new candidates is arguably to the left of the ones on the rejected list, and is a local councillor. This isn't a left/right issue, it's about getting rid of a short list designed to ensure the successful candidate could only be one that is implicated in this mess, and wouldn't expose others that were. There were making themselves a wagon circle. There was no option for local members to vote for anyone not connected to this mess. The list had to go. The new list had local representatives on it that members could vote for. A better more open selection process would be great, but Labour's democracy is already slow and cumbersome and plays so often into the hands of their opponents. More open/transparent AND quicker would be fantastic. How long would it take to get implemented...? Crack on..
This did make me chuckle. After Corbyn was roundly derided for his interest in local bus services, Binners' two favourite politicians appear to be copying him. Surely there are much more important things to be getting on with? 😂
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1375140272661729281?s=20
Bloody hell they're all at it! I suppose you have to celebrate the little things.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1375157980778409994?s=20
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1375109810987937793?s=20
even the Tories have stolen Corbyns allotment intiative.
Good move by Burnham. Deregulation really hasn't worked in MCR.
This did make me chuckle. After Corbyn was roundly derided for his interest in local bus services, Binners’ two favourite politicians appear to be copying him. Surely there are much more important things to be getting on with? 😂
My point about grandad wasn't his focus on bus services, which is totally understandable and worthwhile, but the completely inopportune moments he chose to do so.
The government would have made some absolutely monumental * up with the NHS or something really important, supplying the leader of the opposition with a wide open goal, but he'd written his PMQ's questions about buses 3 days ago (including shouty 10-second Twitter clip) and he wasn't going to change then just because of some epic government cluster-* that had happened in the meantime.
My point was nothing to do with buses, or anything else specific, but the the fact that he was utterly politically clueless and consistently failed to pick up on which way the wind was blowing. Every time he was offered an open goal he'd spoon it into row Z.You could literally see the heads going into hands and hear the groans on the benches behind him as he got it wrong and let the government off the hook yet again. I found it painful to watch.
I think it's brilliant that Andy has decided to sort out Manchesters public transport. He's been pressing to do this for years and its a total shambles. A very expensive shambles which is totally unfit for purpose
This is not some sort of progressive nationalisation but rather bailing out the firms that were profiting handsomely like on the rail and steel but now things have changed, the taxpayer picks up the bill. Post war nationalisations were to support the development of private business not as some sort of soft socialism and when it suited they were flogged off.
Starmer said his first priority is defence. Apart from troop numbers, he must be quite pleased with the needy greedy blubbery blonde, brand new wmd and even more of 'em. Just imagine, all that killing!
point one - currently illegal to properly nationalise the bus service - need a new government if you want that to happen - Burnham has struggled to find a way to make the changes needed within the law, that's why it's taken so long
point two - Starmer has stated Labour's opposition to the nuclear war head expansion
My point was nothing to do with buses, or anything else specific, but the the fact that he was utterly politically clueless, who consistently failed to pick up on which way the wind was blowing.
Are you describing Starmer or Corbyn?
Corbyn waa not politically clueless. That's a ridiculous assertion. If anything he didn't have a great connection to certain groups of people - but he wasn't clueless. He was in an impossible situation which has been completely born out.
There is no point trying to convert Labour back to New Labour. It's been pointed out time and time again - centrism has failed. It's enabled the Tories, assured Brexit and recycled neolibralism.
We need something that is not Starmer nor Corbyn but still socialist. And even then it's got an uphill struggle.
(PMQs is not a benchmark for changing the country.)
We need something that is not Starmer nor Corbyn but still socialist
By "We" you mean "You". "We" as in the majority of the country don't want socialism at all.