Forum menu
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.
< 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