Your Party!

No. For most of the time I remember and when I voted for them, they have been socially left wing.

Just because in general terms you could describe them as being in between Labour and Tory, doesn't make them describably centrist.

 

I think labour are trying to shake off the idea that there is a bottomless pot of money. That every group wants to keep to themselves. Means testing at all levels and clamping down on the abusers of the system needs to happen. So we can look after those genuinely in need. I reckon those at the top end of society that can afford more should be targeted as a matter of urgency. But I see little happening on that front. Stop pandering to em. If they fekk off elsewhere. Good then let's start afresh.
Rumours in the media is that wealth is now on the agenda for labour. At what level I'm not sure.
Rock on JC. Although I fear a split in the centre left/left vote plays into their opponents hands.

 

The welfare

Why on earth would they join the Lib Dems, or the greens for that matter? That's not where their policies lie?

 

This was going to happen in some form. Labour have been hemorrhaging support since the election (and, paradoxically, beforehand if one looks at numbers of votes) thanks to 'honest' Starmer and his lack of principle and urge to simply follow the right wing vote. The left of the Labour party have felt marginalised and unheard and have been hounded out of Labour simply for being socialist. All Starmer and McSweenys doing. Not necessary and counter-productive. Labour is not a broad church anymore thanks to the current leadership.
Whether this new party will gain traction or not is another matter entirely. It will split the left vote obviously (but Starmer has done that anyway) and it will make tactical voting to keep Farage out critical. There will though be lots on the left who like this move. Corbyn still has support across the country because of his socialist views and his clear principles. He also has a savvy 'accomplice' in Sultana who has a strong internet presence. There will also be votes to be had in Muslim areas here.
The problem will be with infrastructure, mainstream media attention and funding. There will also be the bias and misinformation that always hits left-leaning parties.
So, personally, I think its interesting but unclear what will happen at the moment. The breakdown of the FPTP system also makes this more interesting than normal.
At the moment I think this is probably a tactical mistake but I can see why its happened.
Interesting also that an earlier poster sought to ridicule this new party early in the thread just because it would get a few cheap 'likes'. Meaningless, vacuous crap.

 

I'm not sure about the breakdown of the FPTP system. IIRC, it has produced a majority government in three out of the last four elections. I'd favour PR personally, but I can't see any party that gets in through it voting to abolish it. I welcome the new party. I've said for a long time that those who don't agree with the orientation of Labour at present should either mount a leadership challenge or form their own party, more representative of their views. Whatever the new alignment, I think the 'progressive' parties will have to co-operate to defeat the far right camps of the Tories and Reform. Will Jezza prove up to the challenge of co-operating?

 

Corbyn won’t be the problem, little Enoch Starmer would fit right in to the Rories

 

A throwaway line, but little to support it. Starmer will be keeping the Tories out for at least the next four years. All bets off after that.

 

140,000 people have signed up to this new party. In just 10 hours. That’s more than the Tory membership full stop.

Interesting times.

 

Lol. Zara and the Sultanas. Yeah ok pal

 

200,000 now signed up, after just short of 24 hours.

 

Let me rephrase it then. He was against arming Ukraine and effectively wanted it to surrender to avoid bloodshed. He also wants to disband NATO - which would leave Eastern European countries vulnerable to Russian invasion. He might have been outspoken against Putin, but he is sympathetic to Russia as a state.

 

They have in the past, but they seem to now sit further left than Labour on virtually every issue. Their manifesto certainly aligns with a lot of my views. Socially, they're far more progressive than the current Labour party.

 

It was interesting at the last GE that the RSPB summarised their views on each parties green policies and in particular in relation to wildlife. You'd expect the Greens to come out on top by a distance. Yet it was the LibDems they were most encouraged about. Though did comment there was still more that could be done by all parties.

 

Might add that he wanted to hand the Skrypal evidence over to the Russians so they could tell us whether they did it!

 

Is that a problem in principle? I certainly don't see a contradiction. It's only the same as being sympathetic to Palestine as a state but not supporting Hamas. Or understanding that being against Netanyahu and his vile cronies doesn't automatically make one anti-Semitic.

 

It’s true that he opposes sending arms to Ukraine, but that’s based on a long-held pacifist stance, not support for Russia or a desire for Ukraine to surrender. He consistently calls for diplomacy and ceasefires, aiming to prevent further bloodshed, not to reward aggression.

On NATO, Corbyn has indeed been critical, advocating for a more cooperative global security approach. While that view may be controversial, it’s rooted in anti-war principles rather than indifference to Russian threats.

As for Russia, Corbyn has always condemned the invasion of Ukraine and criticised Putin throughout. His broader scepticism tends to focus on Western military action, but that doesn’t mean he’s sympathetic to the Russian state.

Disagreeing with his approach is fair but it’s also only fair to acknowledge that his position is driven by a consistent anti-war ethic, not by support for authoritarianism.

That’s not true. Corbyn didn’t suggest handing the Skripal evidence to Russia so they could judge their own guilt. He called for the UK to follow international law by involving the OPCW — the global body responsible for investigating chemical weapons. His point was about due process and international credibility, not trusting Russia to investigate itself.

 

Correct, but once again this was twisted against him by the right-wing media.

It's in a similar ballpark to Daily Wail and friends going off on one when he suggested that stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship might be illegal, and it would be better for her to come back to the UK and face trial here. Of course, Corbyn's support wasn't for terrorists or ISIS - simply for due process and rule of law.

 

He wants to negotiate in order to avoid bloodshed Nothing wrong with having that as your starting point.

 

When one country invades another, calling on both sides to have a ceasefire is likely not the right approach. The onus should be on the invader to withdraw then talk.

That's fair in Principle. Although the Russian State is effectively Putin at the moment, far more so than even the USA and Trump or Israel and Netanyaru.

 

Brilliant post. You see how sensible people on here fall for the smears & you realise you’ve no chance of stopping them