‘Your Party’ is either an interim name or just the working group name, not totally clear which. Anyway, thought it would be of interest.
EDIT: Yeah, it’s not registered with the Electoral Commission, so it’s not yet a political party, but it’s run by the Peace and Justice Project, which is Corbyn’s existing vehicle.
Oh god, why is this paged? I hate it. Also, ‘Your Party’ better be an interim name, because it’s crap.
This is literally the Green party.
Of course, Your Party has more elected MPs than Green’s as independents. I really want the Green’s to succeed but they fail consistently to get through to people like Corbyn has. Lucas is really good and well missed but without her at the forefront, Green’s disappear into obscurity. Leadership is a real problem for the left. Sultana does have really good potential though.
I think and hope they can form a pact and work together though. Politics needs better left representation.
Corbyn is one of the most unpopular politicians in the country, he’s up there with Reeves. Now, I don’t think that reputation is fair, but we need alternatives to fascism now, not when this yet-to-be-named party has its act together and breaks through (something that normally takes decades). As Sultana says, socialism or barbarism.
This is Zack Polanski’s (GPEW deputy leader currently running for leader) entire platform.
Any decent politician will be destroyed by the media. They painted an anti-racist as a racist. Popular politicians are status quo pro-capitalists. Keir got a real easy run ay first. Then they targetted Reeves. We need to get away from palatable and move towards someone who can connect with and engage with working people. Corbyn was succeeding despite media and slurs, but what cost him was his own party attacking him. Pricks like Streeting etc. Him with a united party behind him may be less hamstrung. Hell, even another leader could succeed, there is no guarantee Jeremy would even be first leader. It would up to the party to decide.
I know that is Zack’s platform, but it doesn’t mean it’ll work. None of this is yet cutting through outside Green membership. Media seem to resent Green politics. It’s why Reform always get more of a platform than Green’s ever did.
It’s not clear yet if all the pro-Gaza independents or the suspended Labour MPs have signed up to this. Only Corbyn and Sultana’s names on the statement!
According to Sky News, the other members of the Independent Alliance are ‘fully supportive’ of the new party.
Fully supportive, but not supportive enough to put their names to the launch? Fair enough, but I guess we’ll see how it shakes out.
You forget how politics work. Did Jeremy’s cabinet resign all at once? It was one a day. Media cycles mean it’s note effective to build little and often.
Corbyn’s Cabinet did not resign one a day, although, as you say, they should have done. In fact, they were in such a rush to resign that the Whips couldn’t keep up. Some resigned individually and some in groups. It was exactly this total disorganisation which led to their failure!
In any case, I’ve got replies here telling me it’s a publicly known fact that they’re all supportive one way or another, and you telling me they’re going to build up to announcing public support. These can’t both be true.
Pretty sure they did it one a day, it was a strategic way to undermine confidence. The failure was because Corbyn didn’t step down.
Media wouldn’t say independents are on board if they are not. They use sources and verify for a reason. What I’m referring to is others that will likely join. Abbot and McDonald likely will at some point. But they will wait so it doesn’t look like a left project and appeals to soft left folk. 4/5 suspended members of Labour might be a possibility. Then you have the Socialist Campaign Group. There is likely 20 names that could join. Burgon, RLB, Slavery etc. There is still plenty of momentum that could be generated. Many Soft Left rebels from Labour not happy with Tory lite might even consider this.
‘On 26–29 June 2016, 21 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned from the frontbench.’
That’s twenty-one resignations over four days, so not one a day.
I don’t think the rest of your comment is relevant. I accepted that the ‘fully supportive’ quote was accurate at the outset, so clearly I’m not questioning the media’s reporting. I’m just saying it’s not clear what will happen next - because it isn’t - and simply observing that they’ve yet to say anything about it outside of this comment which comes from ‘a source close to Corbyn’, not from the MPs. The rest of your comment is speculation. It may all come true, yes, and I wouldn’t even be particularly surprised if it did. But it also may not.
Corbyn says it’s an interim name and Sultana says it’s not the name. Both can be true! I have a feeling the Electoral Commission wouldn’t allow that name, anyway, but I’m not sure.
That’s what Caroline Lucas said, too! I’m inclined to agree unless they get some unions on board. I suspect that’s why they haven’t joined the Greens, already.
EDIT: Added link to Lucas’ comment, the relevant part being ‘I’ve not yet seen any policy they’re proposing that isn’t already a longstanding part of the Green Party manifesto’.
Good grief, they’re deciding the name democratically. This is bikeshedding masquerading as a political project.
I’m convinced it’s a pride thing, the Greens stood against them in the 2017/19 and they’re holding onto that grudge.
Party McPartyface it is then.
They really should just formalise Momentum as a party, tell the Momentum-affiliated Labour MPs to jump or be pushed, and use Momentum as the name. Already has recognition, for one thing.
This will be an unpopular comment here, but narcissism really is Corbyn’s dominant personality trait, so you may well be right.
But even so, there is an old school Marxist way of looking at political parties, which is that any member-funded party is de facto materially a bourgeois party regardless of what its policy platform is. I think a lot of people on the left share that view, which has always limited the appeal of the Greens to Labour’s left flank. I think that if Corbyn had his own way, he’d set up a party along the lines of Labour’s original organising principle, in which there was no individual membership; you could only join if you were a member of an affiliated union or a socialist society (like the Fabians, which basically became a way for middle class people to join the Labour party!).
Again, though, this is a case where both explanations - pride/narcissism AND genuinely held philosophical views - can be true!
“but narcissism really is Corbyn’s dominant personality trait, so you may well be right.”
Corbyn is one of the most humble and down to earth politicians in the UK so this comment is rather deranged. You’ll have to qualify this with examples.
Most Liberals seem to hate Corbyn more than the Tories. It’s a little disturbing. Are you part of the church of Polly Toynbee?
You’ve made an assertion with no examples, while calling me ‘deranged’ and ‘disturbing’ for… making an assertion with no examples. So, I think you’ll understand that I don’t feel any compulsion to comply with your request.
For the record, I’m not a liberal (capital ‘L’ or otherwise), I don’t hate Corbyn and if there’s a church of Toynbee(?), I’m not part of it.
I said the comment is deranged and the hatred of corbyn over Tories is a little disturbing. Please read more carefully or you’ll miss the nuance.
You don’t have to respond, that is cool. I was going by historic posts of yours that I’ve seen. Your name stands out as your comments can be quite… Erm… Enlightened Centrist.
I’m assuming you’ll classify yourself as a Social Democrat, but it’s hard to tell them apart from Liberals. Tend to be open to market solutions, reluctant to nationalise and dislike the left more than the right.
You’ll generally get warmer posts when you don’t make unfounded slurs on people and not back them up.
Describing my comments as ‘deranged’ and the type of views you claim I’m expressing as ‘disturbing’, and then going, ‘Well, technically, I didn’t say you were deranged or disturbing’ is school playground-level stuff, and you know it.
The rest of your comment is just another series of mischaracterisations of my views. I don’t really mind whether I get - and certainly haven’t asked for - ‘warmer’ posts, I’d just prefer not to have my views described inaccurately or characterised as mad. Not an unreasonable request, I think you’ll agree!
OK, if you don’t want them mischaracterised, maybe elaborate on what you mean. I’ve asked multiple times, and you have so far failed to elaborate.
I don’t think that is an unreasonable request either.