< double post deleted >
As for sneering of the idea of workers co-ops
No one did that. Her proposition that EVERYTHING not state owned should/needs to be a workers coop is what stands out in the little interview clip. It might be a nice theoretical ideal, but it’s not the politics of the here and now, is it.
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!
This seems to be a major conflict at the heart of the party, on the one hand they are attracting a lot of support from muslim voters glavanised by the war in Gaza but they include many socially conservative muslims who seem to have very entrenched views about trans rights
but its also home to progressives who have the complete opposite views, add in Sultana's comments about it being a 'sexist old boys club' and I cant see it ever escaping from the factionalism that has been its defining factor ever since it started
it seems tailor made to keep binners Monty Python Jpegs relevant
It's the party's biggest problem - it exists as a brief intersection between the interests of a couple of otherwise politically separate groups. Once we are a year or two down the road from the Gazan Genocide, how much common ground is there? It will have to fashion itself into a broader church, which requires a degree of flexibility and compromise. Is the current hierarchy is capable of that, given that they seem to be able to produce a fight in an empty room?
Her proposition that EVERYTHING not state owned should/needs to be a workers coop is what stands out in the little interview clip
Whats everyone doing later? As the workers co-operative members responsible for running the local corner shop, Beryl would like us all to watch a film about the plight of the cocoa farmers of Ghana, then we’ll be having a vote on whether to continue selling Mars Bars and Kit Kats. There has admittedly been some backlash from customers about last weeks decision to only stock vegan cheese
Would you not rather work for a Co-Op than a business run for the shareholders ? What are the main issues you have with it?
I'd rather work for a customer owned coop, where the incentive was to provide as good a service/product and the best possible price for our customers. But even that doesn't fit into her one size fits all answer to how companies should work. It's her lack of flexibility here that's the issue. More workers coops? Yes please. Change the tax system and laws to (further) encourage them? Yes please. EVERYTHING a workers coop or state owned? WTF.
As for sneering of the idea of workers co-ops
No one did that. Her proposition that EVERYTHING not state owned should/needs to be a workers coop is what stands out in the little interview clip. It might be a nice theoretical ideal, but it’s not the politics of the here and now, is it.
Well, exactly. There's a million miles between "the Labour Party has always been enthusiastic (in principle...) about co-ops" or "0.2% of houses have inadequate broadband" and "we need to nationalise the internet".
It's loopy, especially coming from someone like Sultana who has made such a spectacular hash of organising the political party which she founded and is not a consensus builder...
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.
Where as I have an image of you and its just a flip book of all the "Well actually" memes.
On a list of the top 2 things wrong with this website, the user interface and people who just need to give it a flipping rest, tie in first place.
As for sneering of the idea of workers co-ops
No one did that.
Maybe read the thread more carefully? I call asking how a sole trader business can be a workers co-op sneering at the idea of workers co-ops, it is very obvious that she wasn't referring to sole traders.
And as for this comment by you :
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.
What Zahra Sultana describes is exactly socialism. You want to pretend that being a socialist means being nice and cuddly under a capitalist system, it isn't. It is about the population having political and economic control.
You might think that socialism is pie in the sky, and it is obviously fine not to be a socialist, but don't pretend that it is something which it isn't.
And yes you are absolutely right not to describe yourself as socialist precisely because people might think that you are something which you clearly are not.
There is no difference whatsoever between Zahra Sultana's vision of a socialist society which she describes in that clip and the vision of socialism espoused by Tony Benn and others in the Labour Party.
Despite the sneering and ridicule by the usual centrists who have been at the thatcherite Kool-Aid.
There you go... that's why I try not to use the term myself... you're either grouped in with people like Sultana by the majority of the country... or you fail the purity test for not agreeing and aligning with the likes of her by a very vocal minority... so best to stay the hell away from using the word at all.
Being less personal, Polanski (and others) would be wise to stick to talking about supporting specific "socialist policies" rather than getting drawn into any discussion about whether they are a "socialist".
or you fail the purity test for not agreeing and aligning with the likes of her by a very vocal minority... so best to stay the hell away from using the word at all.
Purity test? I have no idea what you are talking about. Socialism is a word with a very clear definition ....... socialism is a political and economic theory where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole, often through the state, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Which is exactly what Zahra Sultana is describing in that clip. What do you think socialism means....... giving someone a hug?
Would you not rather work for a Co-Op than a business run for the shareholders ?
Id rather still have job a year later rather than work for a well meaning Co-op that at best took its eye off what customers actually want or at worst was hijacked by someone intent on their own agenda regardless of it keeping the business alive.
I was thinking the same. I can just imagine the kind of people that Comrade Corbyn and Zarah have in mind for being ‘more equal than others’ and running all these supposed ‘workers’ cooperatives…
40 year old film reference in for Ernesto 😃
Despite the sneering and ridicule by the usual centrists who have been at the thatcherite Kool-Aid.
See there's the problem. In the world you inhabit people fit into these boxs of left and right and centrist and the reality is 95 percent of people don't. Most people hold different views on a range of subjects that don't necessarily align on a binary scale of left or right. When you put those boxes around people your effectively saying that you don't want to listen to them , they're wrong and ultimately you don't care if they vote for you and if you can't get people to vote for you you'll never change anything. I'd rather support someone whose wrong about things but manages to move the dial even a bit than someone whose right about everything but never achieves anything.
Compare the way Sultana behaves and talks compared to Polanski , who do you think is going to end up having a bigger effect on life for normal working people in the UK?
Despite the sneering and ridicule by the usual centrists who have been at the thatcherite Kool-Aid.
See there's the problem. In the world you inhabit people fit into these boxs of left and right and centrist and the reality is 95 percent of people don't.
I think you have got confused about what world I might be referring to. I am talking about the usual centrists on STW, which are hardly typical of the majority of people in the real world.
Take this sneering and ridicule by binners concerning the idea of workers co-operatives :
I can just imagine the kind of people that Comrade Corbyn and Zarah have in mind for being ‘more equal than others’ and running all these supposed ‘workers’ cooperatives…
Why would they be "supposed" workers co-ops? What other types of co-ops are there?
Binners is desperately trying to project the idea that co-ops are some sort of crazy far-left idea, because "Comrade" Corbyn and Zahra support them.
Co-ops are a perfectly reasonable alternative to the thatcherite mantra "There Is No Alternative". And you don't need to be particularly left-wing to recognise that. As I said earlier there are 26 members of the Co-op Party currently in the House of Commons, and if you still haven't figured it out the Co-op Party exists to promote the idea of "workers co-ops", and that is why they have been in an electoral alliance with the Labour Party since 1917 (iirc)
"The co-operative principle captures precisely the vision of social progress that we on the centre-right believe in - the idea of social responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state"
........"Comrade" David Cameron, former leader of the Tory Party
Solidarity comrade! 👊
I am sorry binners I know that when you struggle to provide a coherent argument you can sometimes become a man of few words and many pictures but how is that ☝️ relevant to the discussion taking place?
Are you suggesting that Reverend Paul Flowers behaviour 12 years ago involving drugs and sex proves that workers co-operatives are uniquely associated with what you perceive to be the far-left?
What exactly was the point of that link? Or are you perhaps not completely sure yourself?
I think you have got confused about what world I might be referring to. I am talking about the usual centrists on STW, which are hardly typical of the majority of people in the real world
I was trying to make a wider point about the way the left,your party ,sultana and ,without wanting to personalize it , yourself comunicate .
You dismiss people on here as centrists and thatcherites whereas I bet nearly everyone on this thread probably feels there needs to be some form of redress when it comes to inequality and wealth . Does that make them pure socialists ? Probably not but it does mean that they're your allies. They might not go all the way with you to the co operative workers utopia you want , but if you work with them you might get a bit closer .
I was listening to Zac Polanski being interviewed by Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell and I can see him being someone who brings people with him in a way that I don't think Your Party can . He described himself as a socialist and the green party as a socialist party but he managed to do it in a way where you don't think he means everyone wearing overalls and eating turnip soup all the time .
Id rather still have job a year later rather than work for a well meaning Co-op that at best took its eye off what customers actually want or at worst was hijacked by someone intent on their own agenda regardless of it keeping the business alive.
Okay, so you have just invited a scenario to back up your own biases. Why would a Co-Op, which you and like minded people were a part of, take their eye off what customers want or let it be hijacked.
Which type of company do you think it may be better to work for as an employee (ignoring your made up failure scenario)?
You dismiss people on here as centrists and thatcherites whereas I bet nearly everyone on this thread probably feels there needs to be some form of redress when it comes to inequality and wealth . Does that make them pure socialists ? Probably not but it does mean that they're your allies.
My allies? Binners epitomises the centrists on here that I am talking about, have you read what he posts? He absolutely despises the Left!
They might not go all the way with you to the co operative workers utopia you want , but if you work with them you might get a bit closer .
See, your use of the word "utopia" with regards to co-operatives is an example of taking the piss out of the idea which Kelvin claims no one has done on this thread.
And what do you mean by "the co operative workers utopia you want"? Nowhere on this thread have I said that I want workers co-operatives, it was Zahra Sultana who said it in the clip which the centrists on here decided to ridicule.
According to STW centrists what Zahra Sultana was suggesting was more far-left than Arthur Scargill. I simply pointed out much of it, the nationalisation of utilities and large companies, was bog standard social-democracy and the concept of the "mixed economy" and had been Labour Party policy right up to the point of Tony Blair becoming Labour leader and scrapping Clause 4.
No one called the Labour "far-left" before Tony Blair became leader. The ease which the centrists now use the term does indeed suggest that they have drunk the neoliberal Kool-Aid and are fully signed up to the thatcherite TINA mantra.
On the issue of workers co-operatives I merely pointed out that the concept isn't particularly left-wing, never mind far-left. Which is evident by the fact that there are 26 Co-operative Party MPs and the whole idea was championed by a leader of the Tory Party in recent history.
My allies? Binners epitomises the centrists on here that I am talking about, have you read what he posts? He absolutely despises the Left!
You know I love you Ernesto. I don’t despise the left at all. I just find them ridiculous.
Well, we’re all ridiculous, but people who don’t realise they are and are possessed of a certainty that they’re morally right about everything are just crying out to be ridiculed.
As Monty Python accurately spotted decades ago.
Okay, so you have just invited a scenario to back up your own biases.
Somewhere between "co-ops are always useless" and "co-ops are a workers' paradise" lies the truth. Of course, this is a boring Centrist crypto-Thatcherite position amd not suitable for a socialist party like Your Party.
I simply pointed out much of it, the nationalisation of utilities and large companies, was bog standard social-democracy and the concept of the "mixed economy" and had been Labour Party policy right up to the point of Tony Blair becoming Labour leader and scrapping Clause 4.
the original wording of Clause 4 doesn't mention the word socialist. When labour under Hugh Gaitskill lost the 1959 election, it was widely held that nationalisation was the reason, and he proposed to rewrite clause 4 then but was defeated. Blair started the discussion of clause 4 when he wrote the article in the Fabian society in the 80's that criticised it for not having an end point and purpose and proposed the rewrite that was adopted in the 90's and does actually contain (for the first time) the word socialist. Clause 4 is still printed on Labour party cards, it hasn't been scrapped.
See, your use of the word "utopia" with regards to co-operatives is an example of taking the piss out of the idea which Kelvin claims no one has done on this thread.
I wasn't trying to take the piss . I was trying to point out using an extreme that the far left , left , center left and even actual centrists broadly want the same thing and could stand a better chance of actually achieving something of tangible benefit for the working class if they were more open to working together .
Well, we’re all ridiculous, but people who don’t realise they are and are possessed of a certainty that they’re morally right about everything are just crying out to be ridiculed.
You mean the sort of person who babbles on about "sixth formers" and so forth to try and seem intellectually superior? Who talks about being "pragmatic" and "making hard decisions".
See, your use of the word "utopia" with regards to co-operatives is an example of taking the piss out of the idea which Kelvin claims no one has done on this thread.
I wasn't trying to take the piss.
Well using a word which describes an imaginary place where everything is perfect sounds like taking the piss to me. I have no issue with you taking the piss btw, my only issue in this instance was Kelvin's claim that the usual centrists on here weren't taking the piss out of the idea of workers co-ops.
centrists broadly want the same thing
No they don't. The perfect example of that are the centrist clique who are currently in control of the Labour Party. There is absolutely no way that they want even vaguely the same thing as Jeremy Corbyn and Zahra Sultana.
They are in fact far far closer politically to Kemi Badenoch than they are to YP. They fully embrace many Tory policies with regards to both economic and social issues such as the issue of asylum seekers.
Their priority is, just like the Tories, to maintain the status quo whether the issue is the economy or the House of Lords, in complete contrast to YP which exists precisely to challenge the status quo.
Ask yourself what the word "conservative" actually means in the context of politics and why might Sir Keir Starmer be proud to publicly call himself a "conservative".
If you think that centrists are even part of the solution then you really don't understand the problem. Centrists are in fact a huge part of 'the problem'.
Would you not rather work for a Co-Op than a business run for the shareholders ? What are the main issues you have with it?
I think it reveals that Sultana has no idea about what makes up the private ltd company landscape in this country - which for an MP is a pretty shocking gap in her awareness. There are roughly 5.5m privately run Ltd companies and roughly 99% are classed as small businesses, and mostly the people in those business are already both it's employees and owners. A little over 56% of private ltd and unlimited companies in the UK are sole owner/operators/partnerships. So, for the vast vast majority of the privately owned businesses, a change in law requiring them to become worker's co-ops would change nothing and have zero impact, and would be a cost for the sake of ideology- it's meaningless; but plays well with the teeny group of committed far-left campaigners to whom Sultana is mostly speaking. It's yet one more thing that Sultana believes in; like Abolition of the Monarchy and leaving NATO that speaks to her commitment to far-left talking points that mostly don't have any broad public support.
I suppose it's useful (in that it has utility) to have a broader range of voices in Parliament, whether those either on the far left or far right have any policies or strategies that are of actual pragmatic use to anyone is probably less clear.
So anyway....... a couple months ago I made a point of not gloating over binners announcement that he had resigned from the Labour Party, because I genuinely felt a lot of sympathy for him having to deal with what he saw as a huge betrayal.
I can't say that my situation is quite the same as I don't feel betrayal, just huge disappointment that a unique opportunity increasingly appears to be in the process of being squandered.
This part of what I have just posted on my local YP WhatsApp group :
I see that the SWP have wasted no time at all drawing the battle lines in preparation for their totally predictable ideological war which they are going to launch within Your Party. They don't even have the good grace to perhaps wait until the huge damage caused by completely unnecessary and very public divisions has died down!
But hey, that's the SWP for you!
I really had so much hope for Your Party but it now seems doomed to becoming nothing much more than an irrelevant sideshow for squabbling egos.
The British electorate are crying out for something different, which is massively benefitting Nigel Farage, he will almost certainly become UK Prime Minister, with so much at stake the radical left falls at the first hurdle, and then the second, and then the third, and then the fourth. And that's before the race has even started!
I haven't quite thrown the towel in but I am getting very close to it. Unfortunately it just takes one individual from the SWP to be highly destructive and cause chaos and we have got one those locally. He's currently slagging off Jeremy Corbyn for being a Bennite, according to him
Id rather still have job a year later rather than work for a well meaning Co-op that at best took its eye off what customers actually want or at worst was hijacked by someone intent on their own agenda regardless of it keeping the business alive.
I've worked for a business for 20 years which is owned by the employees (although not formally a workers co-op) and operates in the interests of those employees ('members' as we're called) and wider society. We have a 2.5bn/year turnover, operate at around 10% profit, have 18000 staff and approximately 60 offices around the world. I think we do quite alright without a load of shareholders skimming off the profits and dictating how we operate in order to maximise their returns.
Churchill
Lots of big industrial coops in the Basque country and some worker buyouts in Grance
Also I'm sure businesses such as John Lewis will be surprised to hear they are a hard left utopian concept dreamt up by sixth formers exercising their extremist fantasies. I don't think every, or in fact the majority of businesses in the country should be worker-owned but there is definitely space for reform to promote worker-owned models and reduce the power of shareholders. Businesses which exist purely for the benefit of their shareholders often operate in ways which do not benefit the rest of society.
Lots of big industrial coops in the Basque country
I mentioned one that, you know, is an actual cycling company!
Forum has gone weird on me... if you can't read the above ^^^^ it says...
I mentioned one that, you know, is an actual cycling company!
it now seems doomed to becoming nothing much more than an irrelevant sideshow for squabbling egos
Surprise !!!
I see that the SWP have wasted no time at all drawing the battle lines in preparation for their totally predictable ideological war which they are going to launch within Your Party. They don't even have the good grace to perhaps wait until the huge damage caused by completely unnecessary and very public divisions has died down!
But hey, that's the SWP for you!
I really had so much hope for Your Party but it now seems doomed to becoming nothing much more than an irrelevant sideshow for squabbling egos.
The British electorate are crying out for something different, which is massively benefitting Nigel Farage, he will almost certainly become UK Prime Minister, with so much at stake the radical left falls at the first hurdle, and then the second, and then the third, and then the fourth. And that's before the race has even started!
Can we be sure that Starmer isn't to blame for this debacle in some way?
Businesses which exist purely for the benefit of their shareholders often operate in ways which do not benefit the rest of society.
Right, which is why you need a state capable of effectively regulating those businesses so they don't harm society. It's not a good argument for "nationalising the internet" or expropriating all shareholders and imposing workers' coops on the entire economy, as Sultana is suggesting. She's nuts (or just not that thoughtful).
Can we be sure that Starmer isn't to blame for this debacle in some way?
Useful contribution. Give yourself a gold star!
it now seems doomed to becoming nothing much more than an irrelevant sideshow for squabbling egos
Surprise !!!
Very much so. I am frankly stunned that dual membership was even considered, why would anyone think that was likely?
And let's be clear, imo the only problem is the SWP. At the last YP meeting in Croydon the sole member of the SWP there grabbed the mic and categorically refused to comply with the chairwoman's request to yield and step away. Everyone else there was pretty much united in their condemnation of his destructive behaviour.
Nothing wrong with strong clashes of opinions, indeed it is absolutely vital for a vibrant democratic organisation, but this isn't about that, it's about what the SWP do best..... **** everything up with their middle-class revolutionary bollocks.
it now seems doomed to becoming nothing much more than an irrelevant sideshow for squabbling egos
Indeed, the forum isn't what it once was.
Dammit, beaten to it
On a list of the top 2 things wrong with this website, the user interface and people who just need to give it a flipping rest, tie in first place.
I keep reading about all the issues with this site, how awful it is, blah, blah, blah, but I’ve yet to see any actual evidence of what the problems are. I’ve been on this site and forum since around 2003, although my details show less than that, due to the hacking back then, and this site has changed significantly several times.
As it stands at the moment, in my opinion, it’s as good, if not significantly better than it has been at any time in the last twenty years.
I do wonder what, exactly those moaning about it would do better, and exactly how they’d go about it.
It’s hardly a surprise that YP has self destructed before it even took off. Are they going to refund all those contributions?
They haven't exactly self-destructived though, they have about 54k members which is very similar to the 56k that the SNP have, for example.
I keep reading about all the issues with this site, how awful it is, blah, blah, blah, but I’ve yet to see any actual evidence of what the problems are. I’ve been on this site and forum since around 2003, although my details show less than that, due to the hacking back then, and this site has changed significantly several times.As it stands at the moment, in my opinion, it’s as good, if not significantly better than it has been at any time in the last twenty years.
I do wonder what, exactly those moaning about it would do better, and exactly how they’d go about it.
There's a 10 month old sticky thread with near 3000 posts in it which covers all your questions and answers.
Edit: though it proplably does not answer why the quote has two different font sizes.
They haven't exactly self-destructived though, they have about 54k members which is very similar to the 56k that the SNP have, for example.
I have to point out as you have done many times the SNP only cover 9% of the UK population - so their 56000 is the equivalent of more than half a million in a supposed UK wide party
They haven't exactly self-destructived though, they have about 54k members which is very similar to the 56k that the SNP have, for example.
I get your point, but the SNP is at that membership after a great deal of time to mature it's membership base. To make a valid comparison requires time to see what sort of level YourParty actually sustains/builds to.
The proclamations of collapse are too early to not be bllx either. Although it doesn't look ideal currently.
I have to point out as you have done many times the SNP only cover 9% of the UK population
I wasn't trying to make a point of membership size to population ratio.
I was simply making the point that a membership of over 50k is a reasonable size for a party to be functioning, it puts YP among the half a dozen largest political parties in the UK.
The size comparison with the SNP was purely for perspective.
I get your point, but the SNP is at that membership after a great deal of time to mature it's membership base.
It is striking that the SNP membership per cap in Scotland was twice as high as Con+Lab combined across the whole UK. Just as a side observation - SNP membership is cratering at the moment.
2021: 103,884.
2022: 85,000.
2023: 69,325.
2024: 64,525.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party
SNP cash donations are very low too now: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-donations-dry-up-john-36349725
I imagine that Lab and Con membership is collapsing too. Even for parties that I disagree with, lower membership is bad for democracy: it means parties will be scrabbling around for wealthy donors to plug the gaps... 🙁
And so I suppose a huge plus for Your Party is that they don't appear to be relying on cash or in-kind donations from rich donors.
At the last YP meeting in Croydon the sole member of the SWP there grabbed the mic and categorically refused to comply with the chairwoman's request to yield and step away. Everyone else there was pretty much united in their condemnation of his destructive behaviour.
Why did everyone at the meeting just not rush the stage and batter the ****?
Blooming lefties.
Personally the old stalinist in me would have liked to have taken him outside and shot him. However that sort of thing is generally frowned upon by liberal snowflakes and unfortunately when the guest speaker Zahra Sultana turned up she requested that the chair allow him to speak for 2 minutes, despite being completely out of order.
He ended up rabbiting for a lot longer than 2 minutes although I can't even remember what point he was making, not that I was in the least bit interested. He is currently causing chaos on the local WhatsApp group which he joined two days ago and his very first post was to attack Jeremy Corbyn for allegedly being a Bennite.
Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need to worry about the right-wing press the SWP will shaft his project. I can fully understand why he wanted them kept out.
Tbh as far as I am aware technically no decision has yet been made to allow the SWP to join YP. Conference voted to allow dual membership with organisations approved by the central executive committee, which I don't believe has met yet.
More evidence today for the working theory that Sultana is just chucking stuff out that sounds gets a lot of 🤩 in her WhatsApp groups...but she isn't well-informed or particularly intellectually curious.
Sultana says:
It’s 2025 and we’re still living as subjects, not citizens.
It’s time for a referendum on the monarchy.
Unfortunately she is about 76 years out of date on the premise of her statement. As the British Nationality Act 1948 made just about every British subject in the UK a British citizen with effect from 1949. The British Nationality Act 1981 (12 years before Sultana was even born!) expanded this even further.
As the UK-born child of UK-born UK citizens, Sultana has been a UK citizen her entire life. She is an MP and has a degree in International Relations and Economics from Birmingham Uni.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
https://bsky.app/profile/zarahsultana.bsky.social/post/3m7fiy7ncds24
She is an MP
Which I guess is probably one of the reasons that she claims we’re still living "as" subjects.
Never mind the legislation 76 years we are still living as subjects. As an MP Zahra Sultana had to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs, and successors. Why should she have to do that?
Also as an MP Zahra Sultana has had to sit and listen to first a Queen, and then a King, make speeches in the UK Parliament. Why should she have to do that?
I think she has a perfectly valid point when she claims that we are forced to live as subjects to the Crown, because that is exactly the situation, whatever the British Nationality Act 1948 might say.
I don't agree that now's the time to hold a referendum on the monarchy though, but that's just my personal opinion.
He ended up rabbiting for a lot longer than 2 minutes although I can't even remember what point he was making, not that I was in the least bit interested.
Never mind the legislation 76 years we are still living as subjects. As an MP Zahra Sultana had to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs, and successors. Why should she have to do that?
And anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Exactly Kelvin. Not like my fascinating in-depth political comments which you go through with a fine-tooth comb.
There's a YP meeting tomorrow evening but thankfully I think he is out of the country so hopefully we will be spared. Although unfortunately it doesn't stop him accessing WhatsApp.
I honestly don't know where the SWP finds these people. And I haven't figured out whether they are all like that at the time they join the SWP or if that's what SWP membership turns you into.
And anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Do you suggest a water based lube when 'subjecting' , or is a smidge of Mobil XHP 222 ok?
Or how about a big wadge of cash? 😎
anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Neither the oath/affirmation nor the pledge required of people acquiring UK citizenship refer to "subjects" and the pledge literally says "I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen". But that's not personally relevant to Sultana or the vast majority of British citizens in any case, for obvious reasons.
As for "British subjects":
> Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’. All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them. Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject
Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking on about and is playing to her (decreasing) gallery. Of course, if your standard for accuracy is 50%, then Sultana is playing a blinder!
"Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking"
Did anyone take her seriously in the first instance? Her boss certainly didn't. 😉
Neither the oath/affirmation nor the pledge required of people acquiring UK citizenship refer to "subjects" and the pledge literally says "I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen".
Oath of allegiance
I, (name), swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, his Heirs and Successors, according to law.
You can play semantics if you think it helps your argument, but the oath is pretty clear to me. Let me know if you need some help understanding it.
Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking on about
Personally I think it's probably time you admitted that you misunderstood the point she was making, ie that we are "still" living "as" subjects and not citizens, whatever changes may have occurred to the nationality laws.
The very fact that British politicians have to swear allegiance to the Crown, unlike countries which have no monarchies, proves that point.
It's strange that you should seek to criticise her on what you obviously think is a pendantic point btw
I would get rid of the monarchy tomorrow as the whole idea stinks and seems 400 years out of date. However, I think a referendum would just end up keeping them. I would go for an option of cutting it right back so only the key members have anything, they would have to be self sufficient and just have the one landmark property in London as it is a very good tourist attraction.
As for Sultana being correct, that is as irrelevant as Your Party which is already a laughing stock made worse by more and more out of touch 'policies' (looking at this from perspective of average voter)
To use a horrible tech cliche, they need to fail fast and accept it is now a non starter.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens". I think that's pretty embarrassing for a lawmakers but others don't think it matters. 🤷♂️
What are the actual, practical ways in which you, me and Sultana are being deprived of our rights as citizens by the monarchy, and what makes it a priority now?
Bath draw a couldn't - rearrange to form a well know phrase or saying. Ever organisation has birthing pains, but this is in danger of becoming farcical.
...but this is in danger of becoming farcical.
Nah I think it's already well passed that point.
TBH from what I've heard about the conference and their other associated nonsense, it seems like the project to create a credible "progressive" alternative party to address the (growing) issues we have as a country, has basically been strangled in the crib by it's own parents.
Briefings/Counter-Briefings, power struggles, boycotts and threats to jump ship to other parties before they've even established this one. This is the kind of shit that will drive away voters.
Just seems to be too much Ego at work, various political operators forming 'camps' around figureheads, basically speed-running all the mistakes that the established parties are already embroiled in.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens"
No, let's not.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens". I think that's pretty embarrassing for a lawmakers but others don't think it matters. 🤷♂️
would you be happier if she had said: we're still living as if we are subjects and not citizens
or even: despite the 1949 Act we're still living as if we are subjects and not citizens
What are the actual, practical ways in which you, me and Sultana are being deprived of our rights as citizens by the monarchy, and what makes it a priority now?
The fundamental anomaly is that the head of state is an inhereted position; imagine that in any other part of modern society. A political party keen on democracy, where everyone in the country has an equal right to influence local, national, and international affairs - outrageous. The fact that head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and therefore the COE has an embedded role in British society sits very uncomfortably for me. Bishops continue to sit in the House of Lords; I accept the need for a second chamber but not the religious leaders who happen to be from the Monarch's chosen religion. Equally, the Crown prerogative to veto (or ammend) laws which don't suit their personal interest is immoral and anti-democratic.
You can of course argue that it's just a token - but symbolism matters. I have no choice in the head or state or their expenditure. A party prepared to question that status quo is at least saying something different from the vast majority of the other parties. I don't think some of the other parties are particularly wedded to a parliamentary monarchy, but it might help to differentiate some of the more extreme "remember the empire", flag shaggers if parties were prepared to discuss the topic - given most of them are keen for tax reduction and a smaller state I'd love to hear them justify £130M sovereign grant next year, not to mention the cost of security etc. We can try to justify it on tourism basis - but we don't pay JK Rowling for the Harry Potter Fans that come, or Amazon (?) for bringing Outlander fans in, or instagram for driving our visitor numbers at scenic spots! I'm sure that there would be a boom of people coming to see inside all of Buckingham Palace if it was opened to all; the Louvre doesn't seem to have difficulties attracting visitors!
All that said, no matter my views on the Monarchy, it wouldn't sway me to vote for YourPaty, not least because they just lack any credibility as a party ever likely to make any traction and in our current system that would at best be a protest vote. It doesn't mean she's wrong to point out the democratic deficit.
Theyre now having a spat over whose membership portal should be issuing the refunds. They’ve got two, one each overseen by the rival Corbyn/Sultana factions.
When they’ve resolved that business, they’re going to attempt to get the piano up the stairs
Corbyn should have purged his party of troublemakers who were affiliated to third party groups with the aim of disrupting and destabilising the party.
Especially when those same entryists try and influence the outcome of a leadership election.
I'm sure he'd be against that kind of thing
When they’ve resolved that business, they’re going to attempt to get the piano up the stairs
Hey binners is that ☝️Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel from Accounts?
That famous double-act whose antics took a 172 seat Labour majority and in just 18 months had Labour trailing Reform, the Tories, and even the Greens! 😂
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-3rd-december-2025/
No. Wait. You can mention and mock any politician in the land but for the love of God don't mention STARMER! 🤣
He's only the Prime Minister!!!😂🤣😂🤣😂
Well, of the many things keeping Starmer and his Chancellor of the Exchequer awake at night, at least Corbyn’s new party is no longer one of them. It’s already spent, isn’t it.
Well indeed, that's my point, however shambolic the launching of YP Sir Keir Starmer still has plenty to keep him awake at night. According to the poll that I linked above they include Reform, the Tories, and the Greens, all of which Labour are trailing. And the 73% of voters who think he's shite at his job.
So yes, he at least doesn't need to worry about YP, but I doubt that he gets much comfort from that!
Polls are always interesting, if 73% think he is shite at his job then presumably 27% don't think that. How can 27% of people not think he is doing an awful job (he himself would clearly be in than 27% due to his complete lack of self awareness)
And yes, Corbyn was also shite at his job when leader of Labour and he also lacked self awareness. Self awareness always seems to be a bit of an issue for these leadery types though doesn't it.
Both Corbyn and Sultana should be saying to themselves, "god we really ****ed this up didn't we" and moving on.
I have to ask Ernesto…. and believe me comrade, it’s only out of genuine concern for your welfare…. where did Sir Keir Starmer touch you? …and did you firebomb his house?
"we are "still" living "as" subjects and not citizens, whatever changes may have occurred to the nationality laws"
Genuine question, not snark: what is the practical difference? how does it affect me in everyday life?
For the record I'd happily boot the Royal Family out tomorrow, even if it meant President Boris - at least we could vote him out.