Forum menu
Indeed you can say with near enough one hundred percent certainty that the Labour Health Secretary will easily lose his seat at the next general election. There even a realistic possibility that Keir Starmer's seat is at risk. Certainly throughout the country Labour seats are vulnerable.
You would count it as a victory to get more tory / reform MPs?
The greens already have a highly redistributive agenda - again what is the advantage for them in joining with this group?
The popular view of the Green's economic policies is that they want to take money off working people to pay for expensive climate solutions which may or may not work, whilst denying them the opportunity to go on holiday and forcing them to buy expensive electric cars and give up stuff they enjoy like eating meat every day. Some/most of this is nonsense of course but the Green party repeatedly fail to communicate this and instead seem content for working people to believe that they are going to have to suffer in the fight against climate change. A bit of leftwing populism wouldn't go amiss in this regard. Stop telling people how much they're going to have to give up, and start telling them what they're going to gain.
You would count it as a victory to get more tory / reform MPs?
He said he thought it was likely. He didn't say he believed it to be desirable (or at least, I missed it if he did).
The greens already have a highly redistributive agenda - again what is the advantage for them in joining with this group?
The popular view of the Green's economic policies is that they want to take money off working people to pay for expensive climate solutions which may or may not work, whilst denying them the opportunity to go on holiday and forcing them to buy expensive electric cars and give up stuff they enjoy like eating meat every day. Some/most of this is nonsense of course but the Green party repeatedly fail to communicate this and instead seem content for working people to believe that they are going to have to suffer in the fight against climate change. A bit of leftwing populism wouldn't go amiss in this regard. Stop telling people how much they're going to have to give up, and start telling them what they're going to gain.
So you are actually calling for a green red alliance where the greens would have to tell the same lies as the other parties and to throw away all their policy positions? The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
You going to take the bet they get less than 6 mps Ernie? I am confident enough to wager all the Greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat at a sitting
They could get 6 seats very easily - Corbyn, Sultana, McDonell, Abbot, Lewis and just a few of the MPs that Starmer will continue to remove the whip from over the next few years. There must be some actual Labour MPs in the Labour party who are very pissed off with what Starmer has turned it into.
The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
TJ it's not me the greens have to convince, it's the average working person who hasn't got time to worry about climate change because they're too busy trying to support their families. Part of the social justice element of climate change is ensuring that working people don't have to make sacrifices while the rich get a free pass to carry on with business as usual. Let the greens do what they're good at and promote and popularise climate policy and other green issues, and let the left focus on social justice and equality. It's an obvious combination if both sides can overcome their class prejudices.
So you are actually calling for a green red alliance where the greens would have to tell the same lies as the other parties and to throw away all their policy positions? The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
Asking people who are already struggling to give up even more is a non-starter.
Any Green party that wants anyone other than the comfortably off middle-class who feel guilty about their over-consumption to vote for them have to start by tackling the wealth hoarding that has led to widespread poverty.
Once people aren't picking which essentials they can have from month to month, then we can start on societal lifestyle choices.
But yes, ultimately the goal has to be to reduce massive over-consumption.
Any Green party that wants anyone other than the comfortably off middle-class who feel guilty about their over-consumption to vote for them have to start by tackling the wealth hoarding that has led to widespread poverty.
Which is already green policy - a highly re distributive agenda. But it also needs lifestyle change across the entire population.
It's an obvious combination if both sides can overcome their class prejudices.
No its not. It really has no advantage to the greens at all. It would dilute the message, allow them to be written off as loony left and there is no class prejudice from the greens. Its you that is showing "class prejudice" here writing them off as only for the well off. Utter nonsense
Try reading the green party manifesto.
https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/creating-a-fairer-greener-economy/
You going to take the bet they get less than 6 mps Ernie? I am confident enough to wager all the Greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat at a sitting
They could get 6 seats very easily - Corbyn, Sultana, McDonell, Abbot, Lewis and just a few of the MPs that Starmer will continue to remove the whip from over the next few years. There must be some actual Labour MPs in the Labour party who are very pissed off with what Starmer has turned it into.
I bet they do not.
I'll bet a pastry the corbyn party get 5 or fewer MPs in the next GE.
There's a caviat though, if they don't stand then I still win.
So those of you promoting a red / green alliance why do these folk splitting off from the labour party not just join the greens? If they are so aligned then surely it makes sense?
Its you that is showing "class prejudice" here writing them off as only for the well off.
Hardly, apart from general elections I've voted green in pretty much every election in the last 10 years. As I said, I'm not typical of the people they have to convince. The class issue is a real one. From a purely anecdotal viewpoint, I know loads of well-off climate conscious middle class types who vote green, and barely a single working class climate-agnostic person who does (the latter are swinging mostly towards Reform). Image and optics are the main issues for the Green Party. Oxbridge educated southerners acting as 'co-leaders' speaking loftily about how we're all going to have to make sacrifices simply isn't going to break through to popular support.
why do these folk splitting off from the labour party not just join the greens? If they are so aligned then surely it makes sense?
Probably because they've spent most of their political lives speaking to and surrounded by the very working class people I'm talking about who haven't got time in their lives to worry about the consequences of climate change in 50 years time. They know that these people are never going to vote for the Green party in its current form, so why would they join them?
They know that these people are never going to vote for the Green party in its current form, so why would they join them
So no point in a red / green alliance then?: It would put off both parties voters if your analysis is right.
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens. If the greens have any sense they will dismiss the idea
Oxbridge educated southerners acting as 'co-leaders' speaking loftily about how we're all going to have to make sacrifices simply isn't going to break through to popular support.
Aside from they arent.
That is the image put forward by the right wing press and hence the rest of the media whilst slavishly praising their public school educated southerners as men (and lets face it they are near enough all men) of the people.
Out of all their recent leaders just one has been oxbridge educated.
The perception is obviously a problem but its best not to repeat the lies.
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens.
And yet you accuse lefties of being factional or partisan? The greens have won no more than 5 MPs in over 40 years of campaigning on the subject so it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their electoral impact. The left is hardly in a place to brag either, but they do have a ready-baked base of support (over 500k signed up so far), along with many experienced MPs, councillors and activists to build on that the greens could only dream of.
How about we put the irrelevant cultural differences aside and see that this could be a great opportunity to unite two sides of the same coin?
What's your problem with red-green alliances.TJ, too European and not very British for your liking ?
Red-green alliances have successfully entered governments in France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden.
Out of all their recent leaders just one has been oxbridge educated.
Fair enough but the point about their image of being liberal middle class academic types lecturing the rest us about how we need to change our ways still stands. Who knows maybe Polanski will change that image but it's going to be a hard one to shift. He could do a lot worse than sharing a platform with Corbyn. At very least it would get him on the news, provide a bit of name-recognition and the opportunity to get his message across.
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
How about we put the irrelevant cultural differences aside and see that this could be a great opportunity to unite two sides of the same coin?
Its not too sides of the same coin at all. Thats the problem. Its not irrelevant cultural differences - its fundamental policy differences.
I see zero advantage to the greens here - only huge disadvatages
What's your problem with red-green alliances.TJ, too European and not very British for your liking ?
Red-green alliances have successfully entered governments in France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden.
Post election not pre election. Post elections in a PR system that requires multi party coalitions. Greens have been in coalition with the SNP in Scotland - post election. they did not have a pre election pact
My objection is that this gives no advantage to the greens - just disadvantage
The climate crisis canno0t be halted witho0ut major lifestyle change. To claim it can be is a lie
Part of the social justice element of climate change is ensuring that working people don't have to make sacrifices while the rich get a free pass to carry on with business as usual.
I have a (genuine) question: do you mean
1) the Greens can only ask the working class to make sacrifices IF the overconsumption of the rich is also being addressed?
2) the Greens cannot ask the working class to make sacrifices - they're already struggling enough?
3) the Greens wouldn't need to ask the working classes to make sacrifices if the overconsumption of the rich was addressed?
Or something else?
I do see your argument (and as another middle class Centrist doughnut, it's not me that needs to be convinced). I also wonder whether the actual Green position is more "we all need to make sacrifices" (hairshirts) or "if we get this right none of us needs to make big sacrifices bur clearly we can't go on burying ourselves in plastic shit forever" (fully automated luxury Communism).
I bet they do not.
Okay £100 which winner will give to charity of their choice. Key to this is what is the deadline by when the 6MPs are required seeing as party if not officially a party yet? (And obviously there needs to be a party formed otherwise all bets are off)
I see this mooted red / green alliance as an attempt by irrelevant lefties to ride on the coattails of the greens.
The greens have won no more than 5 MPs in over 40 years of campaigning on the subject so it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their electoral impact. The left is hardly in a place to brag either, but they do have a ready-baked base of support (over 500k signed up so far), along with many experienced MPs, councillors and activists to build on that the greens could only dream of.
That's true, and there's only one party that is in a long term position to condescend to the others about technical expertise in winning elections time after time - the Tories. TBF, a honourable mention to the SNP in Holyrood too.
But on the other hand, 40 years ago the Greens' policies were seen as mad and extreme. Recycle plastic bottles? We're gonna be flooded by some melting icebergs? Eating meat is bad for the environment? Fack off you yoghurt weaving mentalist. These Green policies are now mainstream across all the other parties (except Reform, probably), the distinctiveness of their platform has been "stolen"! Maybe it's the Greens that really shifted the Overton window and had the biggest impact on British politics!
I think the "500k signed up" might turn out to be a bit of a soap bubble. How many will actually open the email, and how many will read it, and how many will then pay money to join, and how many will be active at election time? I do agree with you that having activists that will knock on doors and all the rest is just as important as tons of money. And to be fair if just 10% of that 500,000 people got actively involved, you'd have a powerful campaigning machine.
(I just noticed my phone autocorrects "I do agree with you" to "I don't agree with you". It knows me too well and I should be less argumentative).
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
The sort of people who think Corbyn is lunatic fringe are the same people who think the Greens are lunatic fringe.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
I think the "500k signed up" might turn out to be a bit of a soap bubble. How many will actually
I'm inclined to agree here. "Signing up" is something of a dead cat argument. "If you think everything's a bit shit then click here to register interest in something different" isn't a difficult sell even if that Something Different is ill-defined (cf. brexit).
Should I know where to look there's probably prior statistics on this sort of affair, a bit like the 90-9-1 rule.
Sharing a platform with Corbyn will just dilute the message, give more ammunition to be written off as lunatic fringe and provide no boost at all. It would be counterproductive for the greens.
The sort of people who think Corbyn is lunatic fringe are the same people who think the Greens are lunatic fringe.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start? 🤣
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start?
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Not really sure what the problem people have with me/others having a party to vote for that is closer to how I want a society to be, why shouldn't I have that?
Oh you can if you want - it will be an irrelevance on the fringes tho and the greens would IMO be foolish to go an alliance with a party that does not share their fundamental aims. There is nothing in this for the greens
Should I know where to look there's probably prior statistics on this sort of affair, a bit like the 90-9-1 rule.
I wonder if (in retrospect) it might have been better to wait just a little bit longer until the party was founded and had bank accounts, and then the first offer would have been "pay us a pound to join and participate in founding our new party". They would have got some initial funding and there would have been an initial action. Now they've got to persuade the punters to come back to the website a second time etc...
...but I bet Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need advice on how to set up a political movement from me tbf
Oh you can if you want
Gee, thanks.
it will be an irrelevance on the fringes tho and the greens would IMO be foolish to go an alliance with a party that does not share their fundamental aims. There is nothing in this for the greens
I don't care what the Greens do. If they knew what they were doing they would ditch the Green name all together as it puts more people off than on and sounds like a single issue party (which some on this very post have been led to believe) and it really isn't.
I just want a party to vote for that I am very close to that is all. Labour are pretty much now the same as Tories who are similar to Lib Dems and I don't want continuation of how it is now.
Gosh, this thread is......
ALIVE!
I can't keep up !
You could call it the "Corbyn effect". Magic Grandad appears to an uncanny ability to energise and revitalize stale and morose UK politics.
I suspect that might be the reason why he is so popular with young voters.
There used to be 550,000 labour members, now its closer to 300,000 that's a 250,000 drop in just a little over 5 years. 250,000 people willing to pay dues to a political party that represents them, and I bet there are many more still in the party who could well move due to the direction the party is currently moving.
Then there are many younger people who have been put off joining political parties due to the right wing consensus of the current crop, people who are entering the workforce now realising they are likely never to be able to buy a house, that the previous generations have pulled up the ladders of opportunity and are facing the impact that AI will have on those low level professional jobs that most had hoped to achieve, that are saddled with the state their parents have left the nation, now probably the 2nd generation to have less hope and economic power in their own lives than the previous generation.
I don't think that this new party will have any problem at all getting members, in fact I think that labour is heading for a membership crisis, not that I think they care as they are only interested in servicing their big money donors now.
...but I bet Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need advice on how to set up a political movement from me tbf
I think he could use all the advice he can get, but the dumb twunt would ignore it anyway 😆
I wouldn't call the greens lunatics, a one trick pony maybe, but not lunatics. Corbyn on the other hand... well, where do we start?
Write us a list and we can rate the lunacy 1 to 11
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
I think most would suggest that the right wing of the party and the labour head office sabotaging him at every step had quite a considerable impact on that, and of course the false accusations of anti-semitism that all the right wingers were happy to promote also had a a rather large impact, so singlehandedly seems something of an exaggeration at best.
But keep telling us your stories, I do find them quite amusing if a little childish.
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling isn't working you will go whining and crying on other threads telling the usual lie that the mythical big 6 lefties have driven you off the politics thread.
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling isn't working you will go whining and crying on other threads telling the usual lie that the mythical big 6 lefties have driven you off the politics thread.
Well simple electoral maths tells you that many Pele voted for Boris because the alternative was Corbyn. You can put your head in the sand and blame anyone and everyone else for his defeat of you want to but it’s not going to change the facts that he is completely unelectable as a pm. He has his base in his constituency but in the wider country the simple electoral maths shows he won’t win
And no doubt when you realise that your dumb trolling
I thought that’s what all this fantasy Corbyn is going to save the world was
So, any one willing to bet in favour of magic grandad?
There's a French Croissant or Danish pastry in it for you, to keep it relevant? 😆
I am quite pleased with the silly taunting from the usual suspects, perfectly shows the need for the new party, and why voters will be driven from the failing old guard still desperately trying to lie their way out of the mess they have created.
I'm all for taking the piss out of Corbyn, obviously, but tbh using the same old nicknames and memes is just cringe and boring. It reminds me a lot of the Daily Mail types that referred to Tony Blair as Tony B. Liar, every. single. time. It's not that it's politically offensive. It's just not that funny.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders. Maybe some of the willywavers (me included) should reflect on whether there's some latent sexism involved in that.
I'm all for taking the piss out of Corbyn, obviously, but tbh using the same old nicknames and memes is just cringe and boring. It reminds me a lot of the Daily Mail types that referred to Tony Blair as Tony B. Liar, every. single. time. It's not that it's politically offensive. It's just not that funny.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders. Maybe some of the willywavers (me included) should reflect on whether there's some latent sexism involved in that.
To be fair, if the plant pot actually had a name for his new party, I'd be happy to call it that.
Just another thing that occured to me - just imagine if he got in power in the context of the Rusian expansion.. the mad donkey would probably axe our nuclear deterrant in order to fund giving each man, woman and child an bottle of weak lemon drink, and 300g of mild cheddar.
Just another thing that occured to me - just imagine if he got in power in the context of the Rusian expansion.. the mad donkey would probably axe our nuclear deterrant in order to fund giving each man, woman and child an bottle of weak lemon drink, and 300g of mild cheddar.
Even by the usual standards of Internet whataboutery, that is absolute twaddle.