DON'T CRITICISE JEREMY ON THE THREAD ABOUT JEREMY'S NEW PARTY.
let's just talk about how terrible Jeremy Corbyn was is
Unless even you are now admitting he's history?
Why does everything end up being about Starmer? This is a thread specifically about Corbyn and Sultanas party.
I’m no longer a labour party member due to my despair at the timidity, lack of ambition and general incompetence of this Labour government. I find it utterly depressing.
But I’m absolutely mystified as to why anyone still thinks someone like Jeremy Corbyn holds any answers. I’ve never understood his weird cult-like appeal. His ‘leadership’, if you can even call it that, of the Labour Party was an unmitigated disaster and the country will be paying the price for his Brexit enabling for decades
Really hope someone is making a documentary about the Your Party conference. It’s been a while since The Thick of It.
Bringing up Starmer is Godwins Law for the left.
Why does everything end up being about Starmer?
Something something rent free... see the banner off to the side in the photo of Sultana. (TBF it is not hers).
I can't quite read the last line of the banner, but if it's the Spartacist League, then it's striking that they're big fans of Sultana.
https://iclfi.org/pubs/wh/2025-yp-sultana-liverpool
It's also striking that Sultana seems to have chosen to plant a flag on allying with the SWP when they have achieved precisely **** all and have zero resonance with the electorate.
Why does everything end up being about Starmer? This is a thread specifically about Corbyn and Sultanas party.
Because YOU binners decided to talk about Jeremy Corbyn's time as leader of the Labour Party.
Everything is relative of course. YOU decided to focus on what a terrible leader of the Labour Party you allege Corbyn was, claiming that he was a gift to the Tories.
Okay then let us compare that to the present leader of the Labour Party who has clearly been a gift to Nigel Farage with his Enoch Powell tribute speech.
If we are going to talk about Jeremy Corbyn being a terrible leader of the Labour Party, and personally wasn't particularly impressed, then we need to compare him with other leaders of the Labour Party otherwise the term "terrible" becomes meaningless.
Personally I think he was better than Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, and certainly better than Keir Starmer who has thrown away a 172 majority and paved the way for a hard-right Reform UK government.
Corbyn might have been a poor leader but he was the best leader that Labour have had in the last 18 years.
Why does everything end up being about Starmer?
Something something rent free..
You do realise that Sir Keir Starmer is currently leader of the Labour Party and therefore somewhat relevant to current political situation, dontcha?
And that this thread is about a political party which was specifically set up to offer an alternative to Labour and the direction that Sir Keir Starmer had taken it, dontcha?
I'm lovin the centrist notion that Sir Keir Starmer is somehow irrelevant to political discussions concerning UK politics......oh how they wish! 😂
Whatever you do don't mention the disaster that is SKS ..... pretend that he doesn't even exist! 🤣
Whatever. Jeremy is always right. And so are you. Or something.
You're probably easier to work with than him though, I suspect.
Jeremy is always right.
Apparently not, I have just heard that YP conference has voted for collective leadership and dual membership, Corbyn was apparently opposed to both.
The spartacist league
Actually had to google that particular mob. Anti-NATO campaign groups always make me ponder where they get their money from.
As ever, their banner behind Sultana here is about annoying Starmer rather than delivering anything of value to their members/voters. Quite sad, really.
Never underestimate the impact of a good placard. Placards are very important
The spartacist league
Actually had to google that particular mob. Anti-NATO campaign groups always make me ponder where they get their money from.
As ever, their banner behind Sultana here is about annoying Starmer rather than delivering anything of value to their members/voters. Quite sad, really.
Tbf you don't need a lot of money to buy a folding table from B&Q and the occasional banner. I did wonder if they were part of the LaRouche cult, but apparently not. LaRouche-ists were the most hair trigger, swivel-eyed aggressive loons I ever came across as a leftist movement. There don't seem to be many of them abiut these days now the old man has died - or maybe I judt haven't come across them recebtly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
Apparently Starmer is toast, a puppet of Zionism, he'll be gone by Christmas, he's dead in the water...and yet it's really important to build a long term party around...a reaction Starmer?
Never underestimate the impact of a good placard. Placards are very important
A placard is a rigid sign designed to be carried and displayed. This is a banner, made of fabric, designed to be fixed to or draped over a surface.
Are you even remotely familiar with left wing politics? 🙂
We will unreservedly oppose placard deviationism in all its forms.
Is that No Hawkers, No Circulars'?
So - some interesting developments today as: Sultana showed up and gave a well-received speech; the party will keep Your Party as its name; the party will have collective leadership; the party will allow membership of other parties. That all seems like a series of wins for Sultana and the SWP and other entryists...and also a set of decisions by narrow margins that doom the party. Everything the SWP touches turns to ash.
1) As Sultana has fallen out with all her Independent Alliance friends (not to mention her former Labour comrades) and regards Your Party as having a toxic culture, the enthusiasm for collective leadership is an interesting choice.
2) Sultana hails Mamdani as a model, but although Mamdani has been "unapologetically Muslim, unapologetically immigrant" (which he should be), Mamdani's platform is somewhat technocratic and limited. He's talking about free buses and avoiding getting sucked into culture wars outside his future area of responsibility as Mayor. That's the opposite of Your Party, which starts with an extremely broad global platform and doesn't have a great deal of specifics yet. To be fair, that's not necessarily a bad thing for Sultana or Mamdani - but just one is not a direct model for the other.
3) Sultana and Corbyn both attacked defence spending, expressed solidarity for people facing genocide in Palestine + Sudan + Congo, and said we should protect asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Sultana warned of a future in which "people who look like me will be imprisoned in tents and deported to war zones".
What is noticeable here is their blind spot (at best...) on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and genocidal actions there. Ukraine is a space where the UK has and can have real influence; the UK is a tiny player in Palestine. The reason why the UK and other European countries are increasing defence spending because Russia is fighting a hybrid war against them in parallel to Russia's occupation of Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova. There are about 220,000 Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.
And yet Sultana and Corbyn did not mention those refugees, or criticise the Russian military-industrial complex that led to the invasion over a decade ago. And I think the inescapable conclusion from this - and Corbyn's orbit of the Stop The War org - is that Corbyn and Sultana simply do not see Ukrainians as "real" victims or the Russian state as having done anything wrong.
In Corbyn's case, that's his dopey 1970s contrarianism - whatever NATO says is wrong and whoever objects to NATO is my friend (see also his attidude to Israel and Hamas). For Sultana, it may be even more nasty and uni politics cosplay than that - that Ukrainians aren't really refugees or victims of imperialist war because they don't "look like her". Unlike Sultana (a British person born in Britain to British parents), those Ukrainians are at risk of being deported back to a country at war if Farage or the far right get in.
Svitlana Moronets has Sultana's number: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/zarah-sultanas-pompous-luxury-beliefs-about-ukraine/ (As an aside, Moronets is far too sane to be writing for The Spectator - half of them are totally loopy).
4) How long before Corbyn quits now that Sultana and her followers got their way on the big points?
Corbyn might have been a poor leader but he was the best leader that Labour have had in the last 18 years.
Genuine question and I'm not trying to catch you out or anything but do you mean in terms of what you think a Labour leaders values should be or what they actually achieve whilst being leader ?
Because Starmer , whilst acknowledging all the other things he's got wrong since he's become prime minister , has just ended the 2 child benefit cap which according to government numbers could lift 450000 children out of poverty . Corbyn hasn't actually affected much at all has he ,despite as you would say , being right about things .
That saying about the left looking for traitors whilst the right looks for recruits seems pretty applicable at the moment.
Corbyn might have been a poor leader but he was the best leader that Labour have had in the last 18 years.
Genuine question and I'm not trying to catch you out or anything but do you mean in terms of what you think a Labour leaders values should be or what they actually achieve whilst being leader ?
Because Starmer , whilst acknowledging all the other things he's got wrong since he's become prime minister , has just ended the 2 child benefit cap which according to government numbers could lift 450000 children out of poverty . Corbyn hasn't actually affected much at all has he ,despite as you would say , being right about things .
That saying about the left looking for traitors whilst the right looks for recruits seems pretty applicable at the moment.
Well I gave examples to signify what I was referring to. It has nothing to do with what I personally think a Labour leader should do which is why I only went back 18 years and not further back to the Blair years, even though I intensely disliked Blair.
To go over it all over again........ binners went into a rant concerning what a terrible leader of the Labour Party Corbyn was. I am not disputing that Corbyn's leadership was poor, I am however suggesting giving it some context because without context the claim is meaningless.
15 years ago Gordon Brown lost a general election and handed power over to a Tory-LibDem coalition, 5 years later Ed Miliband came along and handed the Tories a majority, 2 years later Corbyn managed to rob the Tories of their majority, sure a couple of years later there was the disastrous 2019 general election when Labour got just 32% of the vote, I don't however think that necessarily makes Corbyn the worse Labour leader ever. Especially as Starmer came along and with just 2% more than Corbyn got very lucky indeed and won a landslide.
Starmer has now totally squandered that huge 172 seat majority and Labour now look all but certain of losing the next general election, they are highly unlikely to get as much as the 32% Corbyn managed to get. Worse than that Starmer is highly likely to be handing power over to Nigel Farage.
So in that context yes Corbyn was a shite leader but not necessarily the worse one of the last 18 years. I reckon that title goes to Starmer who has clearly done more damage to Labour than Corbyn might have managed.
Good point about the child benefit cap btw. As you point out Starmer fully recognises that it contributes to child poverty and yet he didn't scrap it as soon as he could, in fact he severely punished Labour MPs who opposed it, something which was to come back and bite him and help to weaken his authority.
Starmer actually waited until Nigel Farage publicly stated that the cap should be scrapped before deciding to do so. Faced with both his own MPs and the leader of a hard-right party agreeing that it should be scrapped Starmer had little choice, especially as he is now fighting for his own political survival, only 18 months after winning a 172 seat majority! Has there ever been a worse Labour leader? I don't think so and 2029 will I am sure confirm it.
Starmer actually waited until Nigel Farage publicly stated that the cap should be scrapped before deciding to do so
Is that true ? I might be wrong but was their position not that they wanted to remove it when they could afford it . Granted that is a not what people including myself wanted to hear . Looking back now if they'd announced an end to the cap at the same time as the winter fuel allowance debacle I wonder how the public reaction might be different.
he is now fighting for his own political survival, only 18 months after winning a 172 seat majority! Has there ever been a worse Labour leader? I don't think so and 2029 will I am sure confirm it.
I don't think he'll be fighting the 2029 election to be honest but i take your point . If labour get to the end of this parliament without achieving some fairly ground breaking legislation it will be a massively missed opportunity.
For me the issue is that I have no doubt that Reform and the Tories would enter into a coalition in order to gain power whereas you already have Zac Polanski saying he wouldn't enter a coalition with Kier Starmer . The next prime minister is going to be Farage or the leader of a Lab Lib SNP Green Your party etc etc coalition and all those groups need to come together to make sure it's not Farage . There is literally not a single issue where a Farage government is going to be a better bet for anything the left care about . At this moment in time pragmatism must be more important than purity.
Is that true ? I might be wrong but was their position not that they wanted to remove it when they could afford it .
Isn't that the standard excuse of any Tory politician? Tory politicians never say that they are implementing policies which will cause hardship because they "want to". It is always reluctantly and with a heavy heart that they have to make "difficult decisions" which they claim are unfortunately necessary.
You would need to be very naive to think that growing public dissatisfaction among Labour MPs concerning his appalling performance as PM, and the also the huge electoral threat posed by Nigel Farage, had no bearing on Starmer's/McSweeney's decision to scrap the child benefit cap.
The interesting thing to note though is that the child benefit cap is actually not particularly unpopular with voters. When both the Tories and Labour back a policy it becomes harder to convince voters that it is wrong. Something that Nigel Farage will have known which begs the question why would a populist politician like Farage back its scrapping?
You have to assume that Farage believed that it would intensify the pressure on Starmer and make him look weak. Labour are now facing multiple threats not only the right but also from the left. Something which is quite new for Labour to contend with, certainly in England.
I don't think he'll be fighting the 2029 election to be honest but i take your point .
No imo Starmer will definitely not be fighting the next general election, I really can't see him lasting much longer and tbh I am surprised that he has lasted this long. But the damage he is doing Labour is almost certainly very long-term. When Liz Truss took over as PM from Boris Johnson Labour's lead over the Tories was about 2-3% all that changed during Truss's disastrous premiership and the Tories never recovered.
Likewise look at the disastrous long-term consequences for the LibDems following Nick Clegg's decision to prop up a Tory PM and Chancellor and embrace austerity, 15 years on and they still haven't recovered.
They say that people have short memories in politics and I think there is in fact a lot of truth in that but it appears that once voters mindset with regards to a political party is established then it takes a lot to change it.
The LibDems have more MPs than they had before the coalition govt. so you can't say they haven't recovered.
The relentless barrage of propaganda against anyone to the left of Farage from the right wing press, social media company feeds and the cowed BBC mean it's almost impossible to see the true underlying picture of the way voters think in this country.
I'm no fan of the human jelly mould that is Starmer and his meek sidekicks (see, even I've been infected with the anti-left group think, despite being on the left), but it wouldn't surprise me if Starmer did contest the next GE and win. People are not stupid in the voting booth, they know the far right will end in tears.
Polansky is marmite (I like him and will probably vote for him if he keeps his present trajectory up) but I understand why many will not. The Tories have blown it for 2 GE's but will be back like a Terminator, Your Party is such a cliche it's not even funny any more.
Honestly? I think British politics could do with the larger* parties breaking up into smaller, more focussed groups. It would make things less adversarial and more negotiation-based.
Your Party could hold the left, maybe with centre left Labour and a center right Labour (Starmerite?) factions as separate parties, the Lib Dems and Greens doing their thing and Reform and the Conservatives on the [far] right. The SNP and Plaid would be able to support various groups on a voite-by-vote basis without having to be bound by specific alliances.
Ok, it would make things a bit more like Europe (which might turn some people off), but it might allow people to have a better choice about how their country is run.
It would make things less adversarial and more negotiation-based.
Your Party could hold the left,
Your Party can't even negotiate with itself! These people are not interested in pragmatic dealmaking to fix problems on an ad hoc basis.
"No imo Starmer will definitely not be fighting the next general election, I really can't see him lasting much longer and tbh I am surprised that he has lasted this long"
It's because there is no successor. If there was anybody who seemed they might make a better job of it Starmer would already be gone.
Streeting is obviously trying to position himself. Better than Starmer? Maybe a little more competent.
Raynor has gone
Powell isn't remotely qualified
I've heard people suggest Miliband, ffs!
Usually you'd look to the chancellor of foreign secretary, but y'know ... Reeves and Lammy
Burnham seems the best choice to me, but he's not even an MP (I know that doesn't make it impossible, but if your best choice isn't even in the Houses of Parliament you've gone seriously wrong somewhere)
That's why Starmer is still there, there's no clear alternative. I'm just hoping that there is somebody at least half sane and reasonably competent in the newish intake.
* How long should people keep voting for a party that says it's all about equality and equal opportunities for all groups, yet cannot demonstrate it in its own ranks?
Whatever else you say about the Tories they have had four female leaders and two leaders of colour. I would not blame women or people of colour for looking at the record of the parties and thinking 'one party CLAIMS it represents people like me, the other party actually does it'.
The LibDems have more MPs than they had before the coalition govt. so you can't say they haven't recovered.
Of course the LibDems haven't recovered from the Clegg years. In the 2010 general election they received 23% of the vote and in the general election 18 months ago they receive 11% of the vote, less than half.
The fact that they have more MPs now than they had in 2010 has obviously absolutely nothing to do with increased support. It is simply down to the collapse of support for the Tories and how their vote was spilt with Reform. The LibDems won an extra 61 seats from the Tories 18 months ago, it clearly wasn't because of increased support for them.
It is a very similar case the with Labour. They went from the disaster that was the 2019 general election to a landslide victory with a 172 seat majority in the last general election despite only increasing their share of the vote by 2%
Labour didn't win a huge majority because of a "huge increase in support" but because of the spectacular collapse in the Tory vote, unprecedented in 200 years, and how it was split by Reform.
The relentless barrage of propaganda against anyone to the left of Farage from the right wing press, social media company feeds and the cowed BBC mean it's almost impossible to see the true underlying picture of the way voters think in this country.
Which is why there is no point pandering to them but instead to actually push some good policies.
The unpatriotic right wing rags are going to attack anyway so might as well give them good reason to.
The 2 child policy is a good example. Nothing has changed economically to favour it so he has wasted a year picking fights with those opposed only to switch now. Now both sides arent going to be fond of him and those mps who got trotted out to support it are going to be wary about doing so in future.
What do you have to say about YourParty and not Starmer?
I do hope they’re going to livestream the first meeting of the 20-person leadership executive as they try to agree on any actual policies.
Theres going to be a lot of tea and biscuits required for that meeting. It could potentially go on for months.
They could have a diary room and a run down of the last 24 hours ‘action’ like Big Brother
*adopts a Big Brother narrators voice*…
Day 159 in the Your Party house. The housemates have managed to finally pass their first motion after a lot of placard making, some yoga classes, 263 walk-outs, 153 sit-ins, a rail strike, a 3-day week, 73 fights, the establishment of 4 new political parties, then the separation of those 4 parties into 26 rival factions….
The motion has approved an expression of solidarity and a condemnation of the aggression directed towards the fairtrade, organic, party popper makers of Papua New Guinea from the capitalist running dogs of the US backed ‘Big Popper’…
*adopts a Big Brother narrators voice*…
That's pretty much all you can do though, isn't it........ make hilarious sixth form jokes rather than engage in serious grown-up political discussions?
Imagine if politicians, a profession which you personally love to castigate, treated politics as if it was all some sort of big joke like you do........... that would be useful wouldn't it! 😅
Statire is an excellent why to make a political point but it needs to be backed up with some serious grown-up stuff too. It's not all just about taking the piss 💡
The best way to avoid piss-taking in the UK is to not be ridiculous.
Piss-taking is a long-established form of political discourse here, generally reserved for freakishly weird folk from the fringes of politics. It's even more deserved when the targets are notoriously po-faced and take themselves too seriously.
Imagine if politicians, a profession which you personally love to castigate, treated politics as if it was all some sort of big joke like you do........... that would be useful wouldn't it
Oddly enough the politicians and papers he claims to despise do just that. Just look at Johnson, Farage and Trump resulting to insults and "jokes" as soon as they are pushed on anything.
Oddly enough the politicians and papers he claims to despise do just that.
You're not thinking of Richard Littlejohn the man that he clearly likes to emulate are you?
Yeah, it's just a bit of banter, innit? And all the more deserved when the targets are notoriously po-faced and take themselves too seriously.
Anyone who’s been involved in political organisations (I can only speak for left leaning ones, but it’s probably universal) can recognise these people. The mocking comes from years of frustration for some of us.
It's even more deserved when the targets are notoriously po-faced and take themselves too seriously.
Funnily enough I don't think this is true of Corbyn himself. I don't know him personally but he seems to have a decent sense of humour and he's been in panto once or twice, gently mocking himself. But some of his inner circle have an admiration for him that bleeds into veneration, and that's not healthy
TBH Corbyn, as you say, is a lot more thick-skinned and tolerant of criticism than a lot of the folk around him. It's water off a duck's back for him, I suspect, he's spent years on the receiving end of jibes, mainly from his former colleagues in Labour. The cult that formed around his leadership is far more quick to anger, which is just fuel to the fire of the piss-taking. As I said, undermining and mocking people who are a bit too sure of themselves is a noble British sport, whether the target is on the left, or the right.
PG Wodehouse was taking the piss out of both 'The Heralds of the Red Dawn', a hypocritical communist faction, and the leader of the 'Black Shorts', Roderick Spode, way back in the 1920s.
There was a thing on FB saying how they had finally settled on a name.
I caually asked of their relevance given how well the Greens were doing. Let's just say the comment wasn't well received.
A very uppity bunch.
I caually asked
You knew what you were doing, you naughty boy!
You’ll have to watch your back come the glorious revolution…
But some of his inner circle have an admiration for him that bleeds into veneration, and that's not healthy
Which inner circle and which people? I genuinely don't know who you are referring to.
I have indeed seen a level of admiration for Corbyn among some young people when he was Labour leader which I personally don't think is very healthy, and I doubt that he does too, but an element of hero-worshiping is fairly typical in cases of youthful enthusiasm.
It should also be remembered that Corbyn suffered a couple of major defeats at conference yesterday, and in contrast Zahra Sultana scored a couple of major victories, so Corbyn's influence among his supporters should not be over estimated imo.
I casually asked of their relevance given how well the Greens were doing. Let's just say the comment wasn't well received.
That is because they think they are different and have a different cause. Heard Corbyn saying recently that the Greens cause is environment based as though that is al they are. I have never thought that looking at their policies but I have always thought their name is never going to help, but at least people know the Green party after 40 years of existence whereas Your Party have started so badly they are already a joke. They should have just realised they screwed it up, given up with it for now and relaunched in a years time.
Zarah Sultana wants to nationalise the whole economy and put small shops under the control of workers' cooperatives. She also seems to have no clear idea of what that means, and to be a bit confused. When Owen Jones thinks you're a bit wobbly, then Jesus...
This is bonkers. It's to the left of Scargill. It's Spanish civil war economics. I bet she hasn't read Homage to Catalonia.
I’m quite surprised at that, as I was expecting a clear raft of measured, sensible, carefully thought-through and fully costed proposals?
Madder than a bucket of spiders!
Putting my Mystic Meg hat on though, I predict that that’ll sound like the voice of reason when the 20 member executive committee comes out with their manifesto (some time around 2048)
This is why many people who consider themselves socialist shy away from the word… use it and your audience often jumps to thinking you mean what she is saying.
Thinking more on this… perhaps “but the Green Party isn’t a Socialist Party” could work out for them very well when they ask the British public to support them… stick to talking about your actual policies rather than worrying about political labels from the 19th Century.
https://twitter.com/podsavetheuk/status/1971877722113589591?s=20
I liked the bit about food production being under the control of workers.
That’s the bit that worries me most. Well, just the “complete” part. Workers cooperatives in the food industry work well, here and across the world. If the UK were to exclude all other operating models for food produced here, we would probably end up with even weaker food security than we have now.
Oh, and then there’s “nationalise the internet”. Where do you start with that? Which nation would control and own it?
How does a sole-trader tradesman operate a workers co-operative!!?
Madder than a bucket of spiders!
If social media is to be believed a load of delegates walked out at the end because they played imagine because it has the line "Imagine there's no religion". This could be right wing propaganda though!
Oh, and then there’s “nationalise the internet”. Where do you start with that? Which nation would control and own it?
I’m sure everyone would be more than happy for the government to basically control all access to the internet in the entire country.
I can’t see that being abused at all. Especially not by a bunch of lefties, who as we all know have no propensity whatsoever for authoritarianism when they get in power
At least they're going straight to proper communism. None of this farting about at the edges. I mean, that's what 'nationalise the entire economy' means, right? Workers controlling the means of production, etc etc?
Is Zarah Sultana truly this fruity? She managed to hide it well to get a Labour candidacy if so. This is Truss-like levels of economic delusion.
Your Party! A breath of fresh air in the political landscape indeed. How could it fail?
I am truly fascinated to see what Jeremy does next. Does he flounce? He's a moderate compared to some of this lot.
How does a sole-trader tradesman operate a workers co-operative!!?
They are. That's when it's easiest. It's when you scale up that it becomes harder to maintain.
Dragging this around to biking though... worth looking at how Orbea have been owned, run and operate. And also what they have in place with other workers co-operatives, to support each other. It's all quite impressive.
Oh, and then there’s “nationalise the internet”. Where do you start with that? Which nation would control and own it?
Odd you mention that since it is an area of concern that the USA still for all intents and purposes controls the internet via ICANN. So there are obvious concerns about that. Not sure they understand that but it is fascinating watching people sneering away whilst displaying their own complete lack of a clue.
Especially not by a bunch of lefties, who as we all know have no propensity whatsoever for authoritarianism when they get in power
**** me. I know you specialise in absolute political cluelessness combined with hypocrisy but thats spectacular even by your standards.
Lets have a look at what the glorious grown ups have done shall we or just how many of those times Corbyn rebelled was against new Labour/tory authoritarian measures.
Not sure they understand that but it is fascinating watching people sneering away whilst displaying their own complete lack of a clue.
Who's that aimed at?
By the way, you do know that ICANN hasn't been a USA government body for nearly a decade now, yeah?
Some catch up reading for you...
Anyway the idea that the internet can be 'owned' and run solely by UK workers is laughable. Is she going to cut us off from the world? And if she wants that to apply to everything we use the internet for... well... utter pie in the sky.
[ Yes, the internet wouldn't exist, or continue to work, without the public sector (and not just the American one)... but that isn't what she's on about is it. ]
Some catch up reading for you...
I know its tricky but note the "all intents and purposes still". You can start with the obvious question why are the Icann key facilities still both in the US? There is a reason why pretty much anyone with a clue vs a quick google is dubious about it no longer being a US government controlled body.
Anyway the idea that the internet can be 'owned' and run solely by UK workers is laughable. Is she going to cut us off from the world?
Again this is rather complicated given the nature of the internet it isnt exactly improbably to conclude the UK portion could be nationalised.
I am not sure she understands it but its safe to say those launching into rants dont either. The obvious downside though is if we get authortarians in charge but then again as the last tory government shows and the current labour one by implementing the tory policies and then adding some more insane ones on top distributed ownership may or may not help.
I am truly fascinated to see what Jeremy does next. Does he flounce? He's a moderate compared to some of this lot.
I'm usually wrong but I doubt he will flounce. He didn't quit Labour for 40 years. He's not a quitter.
Yeah, but this isn't even a fully-formed thing yet, is it? It's a lot harder to walk away from an established party who you've been with for decades than whatever this proto-party is now. Easier to go now while he doesn't have quite as much political capital invested in it, before he has to fight a by-election or council election under its banner. He clearly wanted to keep the SWP well away from it (probably for good reason).
Again this is rather complicated given the nature of the internet it isnt exactly improbably to conclude the UK portion could be nationalised.
I am not sure she understands it but its safe to say those launching into rants dont either.
1) nationalising the Internet - what does that mean? Access to the existing internet? Hosting? Design and maintenance? Content created in the UK? Content hosted on .uk domains...?
It sounds like nationalising bits of Vodafone, Openreach, AWS and a bunch of megacorps plus thousands of other companies. That's an expensive and complicated process. She's currently embroiled in litigation over a dodgy party membership arrangement...
2) she's the one proposing the policy and an MP, she should bloody understand it!
Oh, and then there’s “nationalise the internet”.
The very last time I canvassed for Labour, this was as popular as a bucket of cold sick.
I am not sure she understands it but its safe to say those launching into rants dont either
You seem to be confusing ‘rants’ with taking the piss.
Its an easy mistake to make when people are literally giving it away
Seriously fella, if you can watch that Zarah Sultana video, with Owen Jones, who’s about as onside and softball as it gets, and you think it’s anything other than completely hatstand….?
The very last time I canvassed for Labour, this was as popular as a bucket of cold sick.
That was nationalising broadband provision. It’s not the same thing (but I agree, it was popular with very few people, even though it made sense to me).
Are “we” still paying a near monopoly provider subsidies for the slow roll out of slow connections? Are other countries still laughing at how we leave so many rural areas either disconnected or using 1990s speed connections?
The very last time I canvassed for Labour, this was as popular as a bucket of cold sick.
That was nationalising broadband provision. It’s not the same thing (but I agree, it was popular with very few people, even though it made sense to me).
Are “we” still paying a near monopoly provider subsidies for the slow roll out of slow connections?
Nationalising one part of BT to create a state broadband monopoly for consumers is a much smaller job that "nationalising the internet"...and even then voters rejected it. BT claimed it would need to be paid £100bn for the business.
BT is not a "near monopolist". It has a 28% market share.
https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-statistics
I don't like BT - I don't even use them for anything - but all of this shit is based on some vague idea that BT used to be called British Telecom and therefore it should be nationalised and it just requires a change of name and we'll be back in the 1970s and it'll be epic.
voters rejected it
Yes, I know they did. And thought they would. Labour should never have made that commitment, especially out of the blue, pulling it out of a hat after the manifesto was published… zero effort to explain why it would help the country, or how it would be done. Foolish to campaign on that policy, in that way. Doesn't make me automatically reject it as a way of delivering better broadband further faster. Even if you do reject it, it has a scope, boundaries and is possible. “Nationalising the internet” means nothing.
Sorry, what’s your 28% figure about? OpenReach connects far more homes and businesses than that (with an even bigger share back in 2019).
BT is not a "near monopolist". It has a 28% market share.
its a long time since i was at supply and demand skool but back then a monopoly was considered to be a 25% market share
Oh FFS
Labour should never have made that commitment, especially out of the blue, pulling it out of a hat after the manifesto was published…
I also remember it as having been announced after the manifesto but in fact the source above says it was the week before. It was definitely last minute, both in timing and in the amount of thought behind it.
First we nationalise the internet
Tomorrow.. THE WORLD!
but all of this shit is based on some vague idea that BT used to be called British Telecom and therefore it should be nationalised and it just requires a change of name and we'll be back in the 1970s and it'll be epic.
I think you are letting your frothing hatred of anything vaguely leftwing override everything here.
If we take BT the openreach division has badly failed in its job and yet the taxpayer keeps throwing cash at them. So its not unreasonable to ask why should we be giving them money to fail to deliver vs using it to deliver it direct.
Openreach are a great example of the failure of the right wing (both tory and new labour) idea that private sector is best. The old BT was about in the position to start rolling out fibre before the right wing ideologues destroyed it. Perhaps it might be best not to elect people who hate the public sector?
BT is not a "near monopolist". It has a 28% market share.
Good google skills. Now look up OpenReach market share and then who owns OpenReach.
This is bonkers. It's to the left of Scargill. It's Spanish civil war economics. I bet she hasn't read Homage to Catalonia.
Well I'm glad that I clicked on the clip and saw it for myself because the hyperbole from the usual suspects is impressive. What a ridiculous rant. Did you listen to what she actually said?
What she was suggesting was Labour Party policy right up until Tony Blair became leader. Nationalising the utilities is bog standard social-democracy, throw in some big companies and you have what is called the "mixed economy", which was the policy of both Labour and Tory postwar governments right up until Thatcher became PM.
As for sneering of the idea of workers co-ops, or "taking the piss" as binners likes to call it, it is actually Labour Party policy and has been since its foundation. Indeed even Tory Party Leader David Cameron was championing the idea of workers co-ops from 2007-2010, obviously Cameron dropped the idea as soon as he became PM but broken promises are nothing new in UK politics.
Furthermore the Co-op Party currently has 26 MPs in the House of Commons, i bet you can't imagine what the aim of the Co-op Party is .......go on, have a guess !
I reckon that the centrists on here have been drinking the ol' the Kool-Aid, they naively believe believe the neoliberal bollocks and thatcherite mantra that "There Is No Alternative". The political crisis across the Western world and the rise of the far-right is precisely because 45 years after Thatcher and Reagan neoliberalism has proved to have been a failed experiment.
The use of the term "failed" is obviously relative here. Many people consider the huge and growing inequality which neoliberalism has been responsible for, plus the vast amounts of money it has created for the few to have been quite a success story.
Anyway thanks for the clip, after the weekend's shenanigans in which Zahra Sultana imo behaved appalling over the issue of the SWP my estimations of her had gone from hero to zero, but now after seeing that clip it's probably gone from hero to 0.9
the openreach division has badly failed in its job
God yeah, sounds like a wasteland in the UK. Definitely this is a situation that requires the state to "nationalise the internet".
According to Ofcom, virtually all (99.8%) UK households had access to decent broadband as of September 2023 (i.e., those with an average download speed of at least 10Mbps and an average upload speed of at least 1Mbps).
A similar proportion (97%) now have superfast broadband, compared to just over three-quarters (78%) for gigabit broadband and just under three-fifths (57%) for full fibre broadband.
https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-statistics/
I’m quite surprised at that, as I was expecting a clear raft of measured, sensible, carefully thought-through and fully costed proposals?
Madder than a bucket of spiders!
Putting my Mystic Meg hat on though, I predict that that’ll sound like the voice of reason when the 20 member executive committee comes out with their manifesto (some time around 2048)
I love the way how you relentless go back to taking the piss out of the idea of a collective leadership binners, it is clearly beyond your understanding........"surely a political party needs one strong leader controlling everything and making all the decisions, what is this collective leadership madness??? It sounds like a recipe for chaos!!"
I can imagine that it must be very similar to the mindset of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia......."what is this madness in which people elect loads of different parties all arguing with each other to parliament?? Sounds like a recipe for chaos! Surely one man should be in charge making all the decisions!"
Democracy isn't quite as unworkable as you make it out to be binners. When deciding policy under a collective leadership the process is actually remarkably easy. You decide the issue, discuss and debate it, and when that process has been completed you vote on it, policy is then decided based on the will of the majority, it couldn't be simpler really.
Although presumably you think that it's even simpler if policy is decided whilst Sir Keir Starmer is brushing his teeth, and on the face of it it would appear to be, but the problem here is that it becomes so much easier to challenge and not respect.
When a policy is debated and voted on it is very hard to undermine it because voting is considered the best way to make decisions. Although obviously any decision can be revisited. However when it is one or two individuals who have made the decision it becomes far less legitimate and carries far less authority which can end up causing all sorts of problems.
An excellent example of this is the child benefit cap fiasco and the chaos it caused Starmer and Labour. Indeed maybe if policy decisions weren't so much under the control of Starmer and McSweeney Labour might not quite be up Shit Creek without a paddle as it is now? 💡
God yeah, sounds like a wasteland in the UK. Definitely this is a situation that requires the state to "nationalise the internet".
I do love how you seamlessly move on from making a fool of yourself after making a confused google search about BTs market share without understanding the difference between that and Openreaches rather higher market share to then doing another confused google search to try and prove your "point" whilst in reality continuing to make a fool of yourself.
I'm 99.8% foolish. Do you think the state needs to nationalise me to get it to 100% or do you think there's enough foolishness already?
TBH if some IT nerd with a grudge against Openreach makes a vague allusion to a company doing the wholesale broadband supply and I mistake it for retail, it's not going to worry me.
Oh, and then there’s “nationalise the internet”.
The very last time I canvassed for Labour, this was as popular as a bucket of cold sick.
I am really surprised that you didn't canvass for Labour with Starmer as leader Nick, I have you down as one few remaining centrists who despite everything has kept the faith and won't criticise Starmer.
Where were you canvassing in 2019 btw? It seems weird that it should have been "as popular as a bucket of cold sick". I can understand that some voters might have been unconvinced that it was necessary but it is hard to understand how they could have been physically repulsed by the idea.
It seems a strange thing to feel so strongly about. Did they maybe think that it would benefit asylum seekers?
I have this image of you getting elected as an MP binners and turning up to the House of Commons carrying your art portfolio case, and then as debates progress you pulling out huge poster sized pictures, mostly Monty Python themed reflecting your hilarious 6th form humour of course, and holding them above your head.
Oh how the House of Commons would erupt into uncontrollable laughter every time you did so. Appearing as guest on BBC's Question Time might prove a bit challenging though.
But that's the problem with politics isn't it binners,?........ people take it too seriously when in fact it's all just a big joke.
TBH if some IT nerd with a grudge against Openreach
Kelvin has never really struck me as a tech nerd but perhaps you know better. Although, of course, the poor performance of open reach has an impact far beyond IT nerds. The impact on rural communities in particular is quite severe.
No personal grudge here. Rural areas have been left behind for too long. Not so bad in better off areas that have organised and paid to connect themselves, but poorer areas have been badly served. Have a look at the speed of rural rollout (and speed of connections) in the Baltic states (never mind closer comparisons). Would state ownership have made a difference? We’ll never know. But the state has been paying the subsidies in return for weak promises for a long time now.