‘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.
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.
I think if you’d skipped the ‘You’re insane, you believe [things I don’t believe]’ bit, it would be a reasonable request, sure.