Forum menu
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.
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.
If they're so aligned, what's the point in setting up YourParty? Why aren't Corbynites just Greens? Why haven't Corbyn, Sultana and the rest of the Gaza bloc joined the Green parliamentary party already? Because they fundamentally believe different things.
Still havent seen a good answer for why you'd vote for this party rather than the greens.
We're in the early stages of the evolution of what the left might be.
We can wait until the GE to find out that.
I mean I thought the same about Labour this time around. But plenty of people did and got a steaming right-wing turd with no plan whatsoever.
Still havent seen a good answer for why you'd vote for this party rather than the greens.
I have been supporting the Green Party for a while now but I am more than likely to be supporting the new left-wing party once it is up running.
The reason for this is that the Green Party is only "left-wing" by default, IE, because the Tories, Labour, and the LibDems, have all moved to the right making the Greens appear to be left-wing, which indeed they are in the present situation, although they can and have recently attracted significant support from disillusioned Tory voters.
The new party on the other hand will be fundamentally left-wing at its core and its purpose. The debate within the new party is less likely to be whether to support a left-wing agenda, as is the case with the Greens, and more how much socialist its programme should be. I expect it to reflect a very broad range of left-wing opinions from social-democracy to marxism.
Also the Green Party cannot realistically call itself a mass grassroots movement, something which is vital for genuine and significant changes in society. The new party is much more likely to fulfill that role.
The Greens have 65k members after decades of existence, the new party has already 650k people signed up in just a few weeks. Maybe the time will come for the Greens to affiliate to the new party in the way that trade unions and other organisations hopefully will.
Be interesting to see what the press will do with the new party when it begins to take form.
On one hand there is the inherent dislike of Corbyn and anything vaguely left wing - the concerted number than was done to Corbyn in 2019 is still fresh in the memory.
But on the other hand there will be an attraction for anything that damages a Starmer led government.
I'm not saying that they will give the new left an easy ride if they look like actually winning significant support especially enough to form a coalition to keep Reform/Tories out. But early on I think they will be happy to allow some more sympathetic reporting - Corbs did have an article in the Telegraph on building on allotments albeit on a niche point of intersection in viewpoints
The reason for this is that the Green Party is only "left-wing" by default,
fundamental misunderstanding. Greens stand apart from right / left politics because the key issue is to save the planet. Its only because the emphasis is on reducing consumption which clearly targets the rich more that it seems that way. There is a fundamental gulf between green and left wing politics
The Greens have 65k members after decades of existence, the new party has already 650k people signed up in just a few weeks.
Huge difference between fully paid up members and free expressions of interest. There is NOT 650 000 signed up as members of this new party. Green issues are a large broadbased grassroots movement. The 65000 members o0f the green party are only a small part of the alliance
Again what is in it for the greens to join this lot?
But on the other hand there will be an attraction for anything that damages a Starmer led government.
Well there is that for the right-wing press and commentators but there is also the strong likelihood that it will cause the Labour Party to start shifting away from its current hard-right position.
I suspect that the creation of the new party added pressure on Starmer when he was toying with the idea of recognising the State of Palestine.
There is NOT 650 000 signed up as members of this new party.
I didn't say there was.
Currently it has no members but even if only half of those who have expressed an interest become full members it will likely be bigger than the Labour Party. And certainly massively bigger than the Green Party.
Yeah I agree that the Corbyn project will provide a pull from the left to the Labour party.
The new left party provides balance (term used neutrally) across British politics that had been skewed by reform. In the ideological desert of mainstream politics reform drags the Tories to the right and labour follow because there is no-one really holding them to account on the left, certainly in England anyway.
Be interesting to see whether the new left party can get structures in place in time for the next local elections in May where all the metropolitan/city councils are in play. Labour are already really fearing significant losses from to reform in old red wall seats but would also be under real pressure in some London boroughs and larger urban areas from Corbyn party.
Be interesting to see whether the new left party can get structures in place in time for the next local elections in May where all the metropolitan/city councils are in play
I've been following the gossip behind the setting up of the new party for several months and the talk was always about having something up and running for next year's local elections and then fully operational for the next general election. I suspect that is perhaps one reason why Zahra Sultana broke ranks and forced Corbyn procrastinating hand, they didn't have forever to dwell on the issue.
I expect it to be patchy organisationally for next year's local elections depending on the region. Some areas where there have been mass resignations from the party of Labour councillors I expect it to be pretty seamless, other areas will presumably have more work to do.
I didn't say there was.
the new party has already 650k people signed up
I mean... Maybe use different words Ernie if you don't to cause confusion.
I thought words were extremely precise.
I actually think that the total membership will likely exceed the 650k who have currently expressed an interest. Many people I know are taking a wait and see attitude. Plus many who are currently still in the Labour Party.
In ten days time there will be the first meeting locally in Croydon of people interested in the new party. I will attend but I am not one of the 650k who has registered. I know quite a few people who appear to be taking a wait and see attitude.
If, as it stands, there are 650,000 people who have voting rights to name and determine the initial policies then where on earth are they going to hold conference to give them an opportunity to debate and make policy? Im not sure even zoom or Teams can cope with that many people on a call because clearly there isn’t a big enough venue. Imagine when it comes to counting the votes of that many people. Or will it end up being in a small sports hall which 100 people who could actually be bothered to turn up becuase they are so committed
The 650k figure has no more meaning that all the other internet poll or petition, I think over a million signed the 2nd referendum request after brexit, totally meaningless. We will only know whether this party has any legs when it comes to elections. My guess is due to it's left wing nature, lack of structure or leadership, and the ability of the left wing to fragment at the drop of a hat it won't. I'm seeing next to nothing about it on MSM either, which can be put down to right wing bias if you want but is still a massive hurdle in the way of the party's growth and has to be faced, something Corbyn failed to address when he was leader of the Labour party.
If, as it stands, there are 650,000 people who have voting rights to name and determine the initial policies then where on earth are they going to hold conference to give them an opportunity to debate and make policy? Im not sure even zoom or Teams can cope with that many people on a call because clearly there isn’t a big enough venue. Imagine when it comes to counting the votes of that many people. Or will it end up being in a small sports hall which 100 people who could actually be bothered to turn up becuase they are so committed
You are suggesting logistical problems which don't seem particularly feasible. I think the Labour Party had something like 650K members when Corbyn was leader.
And the Labour Party had no individuals members at all for the first 18 years of its existence. In fact I reckon it was the Labour Party amending its constitution to allow individual members which resulted in the eventual but very slow complete takeover by the British establishment.
Btw I believe that the total for those who have registered an interest in the new party has now exceeded 700k.
It is an extraordinarily significant figure for a left-wing party which hasn't even been established yet. I am sure that despite the apparent dismissive attitude of the usual anti-left suspects on here that the Labour leadership is taking the threat this party will undoubtedly pose extremely seriously.
I think if they managed to convert 650,000 email addresses into 65,000 party members (the size of the E&W Greens), they should be very pleased with themselves. Agreed that email sign ups don't mean much on their own...but it's not nothing.