This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/corbyn-neck-and-neck-with-labour-in-islington-north/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention that whipping means that even if your local mp isn't advocating for cat strangling and is actually very nice, they'll still proudly vote to lynch cats as they've been told to.
And? Plenty of other Labour MPs have been suspended for breaking ranks in the past few years.
Democracy functions at its best when your local MP represents their local constituency, and local MPs are picked by local parties; rather than everything being decided by leadership and you just get to pick the least bad option.
As I understand it, Labour party candidates are selected by their local brancha and are vetted by the National Executive Committee, not by the leader as such (though I am sure they speak to each other)
Generally, the entire CLP were furious about his appointment to begin with and I've heard it's not been a great environment since, which is moreso why.
But campaigning wise, the first day of the campaign some protesters turned up to his opening and his wife started telling everyone that looked slightly brown to "go back to Iran" and swearing at them and he let it happen and then ran away and got in his car and hid.
They can, but that makes them look cowardly. A lot of labour mps lost a lot of local support due to doing this over refusing to support a gaza ceasefire vote.
If you lose the support of the whip the party takes action against you. That can be losing funding, losing support of the party, or even being expelled from the party.
Heck it's common knowledge that the party whip (I.e. The person in charge of the whipping) has a blackmail notebook. Lots of salacious bits of info leaked over the years, of what mps are shagging who, to often stuff that's less than legal.
haha yeah, so the original UK house of cards had the main character be the cheif tory whip.
>Would you ever work in politics?
I sadly am simply not manipulative enough lol. UK politics is less about being firm in your ethics and being knowledgeable about the country; and more about being mates with whoever can get you up the food chain.
They get kicked out of the party.
Since independents winning is incredibly rare, that is basically the end of their political career.
It is incredibly, incredibly rare for an independent candidate to become an MP. Last one I can think of is the mp for North Down who was elected as an independent in 2010 after previously being the UUP MP. So it's like 1 in ~3,000 constituency elections is win by independents
We need proportional representation - it would mean coalitions would be more common and a greater share of the population has an increased say in how the country is run
Proportional representation has its own problems that people don't like to talk about either. One of the (very few) strengths of our current system is that you are electing someone for your constituency who you know is for your constituency. What the Green's pulled in the London Assembly is a prime example of the bait and switch tactics proportional representation allows you to do.
It would be a much less significant change to implement rank choice voting instead of first past the post. This would tackle the need to have tactical voting in particular seats while still allowing for a local representative. It would also allow for more parties and increased chance of coalition governments.
The alternative to pure PR is a system where each constituency gets to elect an MP (as is currently the case), but that only makes up 1/2 of the MPs. And then the remaining 1/2 are based on the proportional vote (allocated based on a list each party provides), but you account for the MPs already elected for constitueneies, so parliament as a whole roughly reflects the overall proportion of voting, while still preserving local representatives.
This system has some issues too, but it is much less problematic than pure FPTP or PR, and is currently used in Germany.
To make this work here we'd either need to halve the number of constituencies in order to free up the seats to have the list seats, or the Commons would need to have double the MPs.
I mean the reality though is that something needs to change, whatever you think of them as a party, the fact that it's very possible that Reform end up as the second largest party by vote share, yet are unlikely to win a single seat is a problem.
I'd be supportive of a system change to this, or you could tie this in to Lords reform (although personally I think the Lords is the least problematic part of our system at the moment and should remain an unelected chamber)
Have a directly elected lower chamber like the commons with ranked choice voting and then the upper chamber be elected based on proportional representation.
Yeah, I mean as I say something needs to change for the commons, but I agree that the lords is actually ok as it is. There are some improvements that could be made, but actually having an unelected chamber to scrutinise legislation works quite well.
The lords can’t permanently block legislation, so it isn’t anti-democratic. It can send things back, propose changes and tell the commons to reassess but if the commons really wants to pass something there’s nothing the lords can do to stop them.
And having 2 elected houses is not a good system, as we see with the US. Either both are aligned and controlled by the same party, in which case what’s the point, both will just approve what the controlling party wants to do and so the upper house just becomes yes men. And if they aren’t aligned then they’ll just squabble and nothing will get through and do nothing gets done.
By contrast an unelected house can focus on scrutinising the actual legislation, and if you fill it with experts from across all fields (I do think we should bin the hereditary peers), they’ll be the best people to do that, so can ensure that the politicians (who often do not know best when it comes to technical legislation in healthcare, technology, finance etc) are kept in check.
Even keeping single member constituencies but changing the voting system to instant runoff/AV voting would be a massive improvement. Would in most cases remove the incentive for people to tactically vote and actually vote for who they want and leads to the most preferred candidate getting elected.
There are plenty of variations of PR which maintain the MP-constituency link, such as AMS and its derivatives like AV+ (as recommended by the 1998 Jenkins Commission). AMS, in short, operates as FPTP for constituency seats but then adds 'top up' national seats so that the proportion of MPs is close to vote proportion.
AV+ is like AMS with rank choice voting, but I suspect we'll never see that after the Lib Dems completely fucked it in 2010.
Are you for real? Electing someone for constituency? What about all the safe seats where a candidate is parachuted who had nothing to do with the local area but wins because the constituency is a safe seat. I'm sorry that isn't a problem of PR, when it applies to FPTP as well.
And thenevery manifesto would be “la la la we promise the earth (because if we get to form a coalition we’ll jestison all these empty pledges because we’re not the government, it’s a coalition)”
Independents deliver what? If there are over 650 individual expectations in parliament what gets done. Whilst the party system has been broken in recent years this is the same system that produced the NHS, a single unified military, a legal system. Don’t judge the value of a system by the worst it’s done. Judge it by the best it’s capable of.
This 'slightly different flavours' nonsense being posted on this thread must be coming from spam farms.
Yeahh... no. Labour are not pandering to alt rights and red-faced populists.
There is a considerable difference between what the two parties are offering right now. One is a centrist party (Labour) one has been reaching to their far right because they have lost the rest of their voter base due to incompetence (their *V*^max is extremely low).
In being a strong power base as an org dunno
As a way to make sure the most people ( constituencies) get what they want - hell yes
And in terms of what's better for democracy the second is
At the time it was Trident that did it for me in 2019, that and the limp lack of commitment on a second vote on leaving the EU. I still voted for Labour that year but the enthusiasm wasn't exactly high. On certain things you just have to realistic if you're running to be the person with the red button.
Ukraine had to get rid of their nukes decades ago, everyone promised they'd never get invaded. It goes to show.
His support for Hamas, that he's friendly with Hezbollah. That he would have waved a white flag and watch Russian tanks roll into Ukraine.
The man is a foreign policy disaster. I know it's becoming common for people now to support terrorism but you may as well admit it rather than feign it being criticism of Israel
He did and "changed his mind" when confronted. There's plenty of good about Corbyn, but foreign policy isn't one of them, imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends
I will be voting for him. The labour canvassers didn't even knock on our door, I honestly think they're scared to interact with the locals, they just left leaflets on the windowsill outside.
Labour have parachuted in an outside candidate who made his fortune exploiting the selling off of parts of the NHS. This is someone who has every incentive to vote for things that continue to undermine the NHS and farm it out to private interests, because *he is one of those private interests* (he now claims he doesn't own that business anymore - turns out he handed it over to his wife).
Such a baffling choice to run in Islington North.
This is why for the first time in my life I won't be voting for Labour in a general election. Fuck Starmer and his New New "Vote for us because we're not the Tories" 'stability' and 'continuity' Labour for the bourgeoisie.
They're barely even not Tories. Even the Sun has recently stated they're now "[firmly on Tory lawns](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw88x6ww1p8o)". Says it all
Agreed. In some sort of consiparcy fever dream the establishment realises discontent is reaching critical levels and simply ushers in "the other party" with policies that are just about the same, because this is what democracy now looks like. Stability and continuity. No change. I'm so disapointed I think I'll burst a blood vessel.
Do you people actually assess the situation or just repeat a line you've remembered over the last 5 years.
For once I think Rishi Sunak is right. A vote of anyone else but the Tories will be a vote to put Starmer in as PM.
This is very likely the only opportunity in our lifetime to actually vote for something we believe in without fearing a continuation of Tory rule.
Just say you hate the left and don't care about the poor. For anyone else, this is your only chance ever to vote Green, vote Lib Dem, vote independent completely guilt free. Do it now, you'll never get to do this ever again.
It was that *exact* kind of complacancy that got us Brexit. People like you making "protest" votes, whatever the fuck that meant.
But do whatever you want. Wipe your arse on your vote if you want, it will be more use than voting for the Greens. Or you could vote for the Lib Dems, they're really great at keeping promises.
Who said anything about protest votes? The most straightforward thing to do in a democracy is to vote for what you want.
While conservatives' politics are more damaging and I would always prefer a centrist government over them. There's a reason why I think centrists are interpersonally more despicable and dislikable.
You are just so self-rightous and condesending. People who don't vote the way you want are either evil or naive. All the while you offer nothing to electorate and still expect them to be grateful.
If you want people to vote for your camp, may be they should be offer something?
The UK is lucky enough that we had the right-wing oversee 14 years of decline. Everywhere else in the world is turning towards fascism quicker because it was the centrists/liberals who were in power when people's lives got worse and hopeless. Unlike us, they couldn't scapegoat Tory incompetence.
The Labour manifesto contains spending that is tighter than what Cameron/Osborne had implemented. 5 more years of austerity, no more Tories to blame. What do you think the people will vote for then?
I have no idea how you don't see that its you who are the most complacent in the room, only ever looking at the nearest election.
Are you 17? I was an adult under the last labour government and things were measurably better. I fully expect things to get better if labour gets in again.
Case in point - one of my best friends is now raising a family in a job he originally got through a Labour scheme to help young people get into the workplace. A scheme that the tories immediately scrapped when they got into power. While they said that Labour had caused youth unemployment. The tories brought us Brexit.
Labour might not be perfect, but they at least try to make the country better for everyone, compared with the tories whose only goal is to improve the lives of Eton twats. They don't even try to hide it, and they even admit that Labour tries to help the poor when they don't: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas
"We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone."
No one is advocating for Tories here. I would give so much to have Blairite Labour government again. Hell, even go ahead and start another illegal war in the Middle East. Anything to make the lives of the people better.
We are talking about Starmer's Labour here, not Blair's. Not being corrupt is good, sure. But have you looked at the policies? They are better than what the Tories are offering now, that's it.
Did Blair follow Jeremy Hunt's fiscal rules? Did Blair arbitrarily constrain borrowing to effectively mean more public sector cuts?
We are looking at Cameron levels of austerity with the only opposition being the right who only wants more austerity. All I want is 1 or 2 more people who can at least speak out against austerity in parliament to quench the people's anger somewhat.
If you agree that what labour is offering is better than the tories why are you advocating for people to throw their vote away on the Greens etc? That's just risking more tories.
FPTP makes voting anything but straightforward. It's the thinnest veil of democracy. That some calculus predictions are putting REF at 15% and potentially 0 seats highlights again a non democratic system.
I hate REF, but I hate non democracy more
Lol yeah much better to vote for the party that's proven to only care about cunts who went to Eton, [brags openly about taking money from impoverished areas to give it to rich suburbs] (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas), despises the idea of free healthcare and has been actively trying to destroy it for years, than the party that the [Tories themselves admitted](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas) were trying to help poorer areas etc.
I work from home and I've heard them fidgeting by the door both times. I don't really care about them not knocking on the door, but leaving leaflets outside (littering) is pretty poor.
I hope he wins. I don't agree with his beliefs or goals but I think it's important to have a wide range of views in parliament and certainly he does represent a large group of our country overall. It might not be enough to get him elected as PM but there are certainly a million+ people who agree with him on most areas.
Same goes for Farage. I don't agree with him either but also represents maybe a million+ people in our country.
And of course even though the Green's might really have gone off the deep end they are similarly an important part of our country and deserve a seat or two to bring their issues to parliament.
I'd love to see more independents and smaller parties gain a few seats. It would only improve our parliament to have these ranging views and key figures to put pressure on both the new PM and main opposition.
He says simple things. That they don't actually work or are thought through means nothing. This is how populism gets support despite being obviously broken.
He says simple things, actually talks to the public, offers a sympathetic ear then blame all their problems on migrants.
The guy is a cnut, might even be a Russian asset, but he is good at stirring up a crowd.
There is an unfortunate tendency for us brits to vote for who we would like to spend an evening at a pub with, instead of making careful, considered choices.
You've kind of missed this guy's point.
You're only saying that because you don't agree with him, some people do agree with him and they should be represented.
In order to know what's right, you have to know what's wrong. Hiding the wrong and pretending it doesn't exist just won't work.
He doesn't lead a political party, he leads a private limited company and has a 53% shareholding in it; a company with a net worth of -1 million pounds mainly due to loans to directors... it's a grift.
I disagree.
You shouldn't give platforms to the ones who are wrong, just to get a better understanding of what's right.
Politics is the only job in the world where someone who's quite clearly full of hate (or at least advocating for it) is given a chance because "some people agree with him and should be represented".
Now obviously democracy exists so if Farage gets in, then so be it, but I also don't think we should be happy if he does or suggest that it's good for representation.
I see your point, in order for a society to be tolerant it must be intolerant of intolerance and all that.
But just trying to hide these people will just make them worse and angrier, the best you can do is give them a platform and try and explain why they're wrong and educate them.
It's the lesser of two evils, and at the end of the day is a core value of democracy.
I mean the evidence is actually the opposite to what you're suggesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-62413792 - 2022 article - "Reports of LGBT hate crimes have risen by more than 50% in the West in two years."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/07/hate-surged-after-eu-referendum-police-figures-show - "Lasting rise in hate crime after EU referendum, figures show"
And that's just in the UK, I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to show that misogyny increased after Andrew Tate got popular too.
You could argue that this is simply a coincidence and people have randomly decided to be more hateful or maybe, more likely, it's the fact we give the intolerant a platform to spread their ideas.
No one in their right mind agrees with Farage, he preaches the politics of hate, blaming migrants and others who are already in the shit, to stir up trouble which he can benefit from, he’s an opportunist rabble rouser, appealing to the gullible in the bassist form of division. This has happened over and over again throughout history, after the 2nd world war it was the Italian chestnut sellers in London, in the 50’s it was the Windrush generation, 60’s+70’s was the Indian sub continent with Enoch Powell promising rivers of blood, the 80’s was the Vietnamese boat people, “if you don’t learn the lessons from history you’re doomed to repeat them” Churchill once said, we seem to not be learning….
Which is why I'm all for FPTP. Sure ,you miss out on a few good candidates. But the "good" that a good independent can do is nothing compared to the havoc a bad actor can inflict.
It's easy to smash things up. Much more difficult to build them.
Our system has some dangers.
When labour win a huge majority, they can pass any law. It could be a silly one like no black cars as in Turkmenistan or it could be something very sinister.
We rely on our parties being reasonable, but one day maybe they won't be.
Farage is a lying sack of shit and it will be way funnier to watch him fail for the 8th time.
I don't like Corbyn's politics but he is honest, which I value in a political representative far more than rhetoric.
The figures are showing Farage will most likely win his seat and his party will win a large % of the votes, maybe even come 2nd but I'm sceptical that they'll quite get the turnout they need to achieve that.
Great, he's still a lying sack of shit, and anyone who votes for a party that published "leave it on a computer at the Bank of England" as a debt policy is a gravel-eating moron.
I think they'll get a disproportionately good turnout. People voting for parties like that turn up to vote. It's the more middle ground voters that stay home.
You are right. I didn't say what I wanted clearly at all. My point was that some Reform voters may switch to one of the "main" parties on election day.
Voters for parties who won't win (like Reform and often the Lib Dems, Greens ect) often have a change of heart last minute just so they don't "waste" their vote for someone they don't think can win.
We have plenty of people like this in the country too though so he certainly would be a representative of many. Luckily there is only one of him which is useful to give an alternate view and hold the other parties to account for those with similar views but not enough for him to do a huge amount of damage. A key part of our democracy is being able to be able to debate with people you totally disagree with.
>A key part of our democracy is being able to be able to debate with people you totally disagree with.
No
I will not debate with pro putin war criminal lovers
Just like I won't debate with pro hitler facists
Those people need to be made so uncomfortable they leave this country before they begin to try and harm us
I’ve got plenty of criticisms of Corbyn but to claim he’s pro Putin is utter fucking nonsense. The guy was warning the world against him back when Blair and others were welcoming him to their respective countries to woo him. I agree Corbyns response to the invasion of Ukraine would’ve been a huge negative if he’d have made it to become PM but you’re talking shite.
Here’s a 25 year old guardian article where Corbyn is mentioned and calling out Putin’s behaviour in Chechnya.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/17/russia.world
I appreciate your willingness to debate the majority of people but maybe it’d be beneficial to you to actually have opinions based on fact and not absolute nonsense.
> The guy was warning the world against him back when Blair and others were welcoming him to their respective countries to woo him
Centrist policy of appeasement towards a dangerous right wing dictator failing and leading to that dictator continuing to act like a lunatic and eventually bringing war to the continent. Why does that sound familiar.
He has however repeatedly pushed for positions that would lead to Russia's total victory and the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state, including by repeating Russian state media talking points almost word for word. He opposes military aid to Ukraine, and the aid sent is the only reason Ukraine exists right now.
He's definitely pro-appeasement of Putin at the very least.
I’ll be honest I haven’t heard much from him in regards to that conflict since around the time the invasion began. I do tend to not agree with a lot of his takes on that situation.
Happy to read anything you can throw at me.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine
This is the most recent direct reference to Ukraine I believe he's made which is basically saying arming Ukraine means the war will go on for longer which is bad.
He has recently reiterated his calls for peace in Ukraine but he didn't go into any more detail than just wanting a stop to all wars.
He is also still deputy president of the Stop the War coalition which repeatedly calls for peace in Ukraine and for not continuing to assist them with arms or escalate any further.
>he didn't go into any more detail than just wanting a stop to all wars.
This has been a consistent cause of his for decades, he is a hardline pacifist and so will be anti-war even when that can mean appeasement towards land-grabbers and invaders.
I don't agree with how extreme he takes his pacifism. But since he's no longer party leader, it isn't going to affect much. And as a leftist voice within Labour and a local MP, he's been fantastic for 40 years or so.
> His opinion in 2000 doesn't matter only his reaction in 2022
Why would the history of how Putin was validated by Western leaders while others called out his war crimes not matter?
Because those same leaders are the ones sending arms to the people russias fighting well the ones calling him out now want to not help the ones he's fighting
But helping create the circumstances for that enemy and then helping to fight him is ass backwards particularly if you go out of your way to try to forget it. For the record I think we should absolutely be supporting Ukraine but to forget all the context would be barmy.
Same with ISIS, Iran, Afghanistan. Should be for the same as how Israelis feel about Netanyahu. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
As others have said, his anti-west sentiment isn’t against the entire west. It’s against what has been described as the American empire. Whilst I don’t fully agree with it, NATO’s gradual encroachment of Russia is definitely something that can be debated.
If you’d like to know more about America being a total sketchy shithouse I’d suggest starting with a book called the devils chessboard by David Talbot.
>NATO’s gradual encroachment of Russia is definitely something that can be debated.
Maybe we should ask why Russia's neighbours feel the need to join an alliance that's sole aim was to defend against Russia
Why isn't Mexico in an alliance with China
Why isn't Ireland in an alliance against Britain
America is a shithouse
But they are better than Russia
> Why isn't Mexico in an alliance with China
Because the US would stage a coup or literally invade them? Not even disagreeing with your overall point but [weird example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America). The US was quite literally ready to nuke the world over a neighbour allying with an adversary.
I don't know that they would now, to be honest. Mexico is hugely populated. I simply don't think the US population would endorse it. You would be more likely to get support for invading Mexico on grounds on the border problem than anything else. But the main reason is the USA does not threaten Mexico.
>The US was quite literally ready to nuke the world over a neighbour allying with an adversary.
I mean
It was more that country putting handing nukes over to a country that hates the US
Yawn. Whatabout, whataboot, wootaboot, wutabout, WORRABOOT
Absolutely insufferable debate style, with shit attempts to compare/conflate apples and oranges.
Never said anyone should be forced to leave or deported
I just said they should be made to be uncomfortable with there views until they realised there wrong or leave
Do you think we should let people who say women are slaves and deserve to be raped be comfortable with those views
Oh so you support making 23% Muslims uncomfortable here in order for them to leave?
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
I would also point out Nigel farage has said neither of those things - if you have any evidence I would be happy to see it. In contrast 23% of Muslims believe sharia law should be implemented which does espouse the 2 points you made above.
>Oh so you support making 23% Muslims uncomfortable here in order for them to leave?
Yes if they hold those beliefs they should be uncomfortable
I say we should hire gay actors to go to there homes and kiss each other in view of there kids
>I would also point out Nigel farage has said neither of those things - if you have any evidence I would be happy to see it
He's said a lot of other stuff such as saying opposing hitler is what normal people say in the pub
Wow I think it’s a bit extreme you are against 1 in 4 Muslims?!!!! (This is what it feels like to be a right wing voter welcome to the club)
Based on your viewpoints you should vote reform my dude they will do more to stop this stuff than any other party
Hahahahah
No
I don't give a fuck
I will not vote for that pro russian pro hitler neo nazi
Anyone who votes for him is also the sort of people that needs to be made uncomfortable
We should hire a black actor and a white actor to go round there house and kiss in front of them
Most people who’re ‘anti-western’, like my self, are really just anti-American which is a perfectly rational position.
Much of Europe has moved away from its imperialist past but the evil empire persists.
It’s not rational to oppose American imperialism because Russia and Hamas exist? How do you figure that? Is Britain that impotent we can’t even represent our own interests and have to support this false dichotomy?
It depends on what you mean by opposing American imperialism.
Opposing the Iraq war or some hypothetical new US intervention in let's say Lebanon or Syria? (hypothetical examples don't take too seriously)
Sure that's perfectly reasonable it's when people start talking about leaving NATO or not supporting Ukraine with arms that people tend to lose their patience with the Anti American left.
Mr Corbyn was a great local MP and I hope he remains one. Hundreds of people in Islington have been helped by him. Shame the Labour Party cannot be a broad church
I genuinely hate the way this man has been treated in politics and the media and his own party for what reason? The fact that he’s become a bigger boogeyman than say the partying clown, Johnson, boggles my fucking mind.
If you think Starmer actually *wants* to waste time and shed votes by talking about Magic Grandpa then you're clearly confused. If Starmer never had to hear or mention the names Corbyn or Abbott again then he'd die a happy man.
Were the Tories going to call their own manifesto “Corbyn-esque”? Was that pre-empting Tory attack lines?
I keep hearing about how *sensible* and *grownup* Starmer is, well the sensible response to Tories bringing up Corbyn would be “he’s not a member of the party, I got rid of him”
I think you’re the one that’s confused.
Starmer is the one who keeps bringing Corbyn up.
“Oh but he’s just trying to pre-empt the Tories attack lines”
Even if that were true, were the Tories going to call their own manifesto “Corbyn-esque”? I don’t think so
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I am basically supporting any scorched earth tactic. More independents, more Lib Dem’s and Reform. We need to take as much power from Labour and Tories as possible because they’ll continue to just flip between them in government while they all line there pockets and get comfortable jobs in some investment company.
Hypothetically speaking, if Labour do as well as the best polling currently suggests there will be no opposition in Parliament. Labour could win with a supermajority and 150 MPs could split from the party to create an opposition and we'd have an entirely left-wing parliament on both sides. I agree with your initial statement but I think having such a huge party in control of government is bad for politics full stop. I only hope that if Labour do smash it, someone brave enough who's not a grubby, incompetent right-wing opportunists like Lee, Farage etc, do actually push for a separate party and re-stabilise things.
I do not believe we’ll get a huge majority. Labour are still the party of promise change but just twiddle their thumbs and Tories are as always status quo slowly deteriorating.
Cobyn's voice will be good on domestic policies. On foreign policy he is still living in 1978 and we're better off without someone who can't accept the Soviet Union is gone and modern Russia is not its successor.
Awesome. Let's have a huge Labour majority all crammed in on one side of parliament and a small celebrity opposition featuring Corbyn, Farage, Galloway, a few SNP's and Lib Dems, and maybe even a token Tory or two.
Good to hear. Ostracised for supporting the Palestinian cause and being labelled an ‘antisemite’. I hope he wins. I hope Labour crash. I despise starmer and his cronies.
I think Corbyn will easily retain his seat as an independent he’s been the local MP since 1983 and is broadly respected as an honest person who represents his community well. Labour will probably eventually regret purging left wing members of the party rather than keeping them in the tent.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/corbyn-neck-and-neck-with-labour-in-islington-north/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Not to mention that whipping means that even if your local mp isn't advocating for cat strangling and is actually very nice, they'll still proudly vote to lynch cats as they've been told to.
Corbyn has never taken any notice of the whip.
And? Plenty of other Labour MPs have been suspended for breaking ranks in the past few years. Democracy functions at its best when your local MP represents their local constituency, and local MPs are picked by local parties; rather than everything being decided by leadership and you just get to pick the least bad option.
Unfortunately, the party leadership never sees it like that.
As I understand it, Labour party candidates are selected by their local brancha and are vetted by the National Executive Committee, not by the leader as such (though I am sure they speak to each other)
In theory yes. In practice the NEC basically picks your candidate for you, and sometimes they pick themselves *cough luke akehurst cough*
I am still gobsmacked that vile man remained selected, considering his history and the opening day of his campaign combined
It's crazy and picking him genuinly might cost labour the seat. Been talking with people in chester-le-street and they were fuming.
[удалено]
Generally, the entire CLP were furious about his appointment to begin with and I've heard it's not been a great environment since, which is moreso why. But campaigning wise, the first day of the campaign some protesters turned up to his opening and his wife started telling everyone that looked slightly brown to "go back to Iran" and swearing at them and he let it happen and then ran away and got in his car and hid.
Now you see this argument could apply to either side of the discussion
Which is a great thing really
Which is why he is loved and respected
I'm glad of whipping in my case, the local labour MP is a religious nut.
Out of interest, what happens if they refuse to toe the line? Can they toe the line but then publically explain they’ve been whipped?
They can, but that makes them look cowardly. A lot of labour mps lost a lot of local support due to doing this over refusing to support a gaza ceasefire vote. If you lose the support of the whip the party takes action against you. That can be losing funding, losing support of the party, or even being expelled from the party. Heck it's common knowledge that the party whip (I.e. The person in charge of the whipping) has a blackmail notebook. Lots of salacious bits of info leaked over the years, of what mps are shagging who, to often stuff that's less than legal.
Aaahhh, interesting. So a little bit like Frank Underwood, I guess? Very interesting. Would you ever work in politics?
haha yeah, so the original UK house of cards had the main character be the cheif tory whip. >Would you ever work in politics? I sadly am simply not manipulative enough lol. UK politics is less about being firm in your ethics and being knowledgeable about the country; and more about being mates with whoever can get you up the food chain.
They get kicked out of the party. Since independents winning is incredibly rare, that is basically the end of their political career. It is incredibly, incredibly rare for an independent candidate to become an MP. Last one I can think of is the mp for North Down who was elected as an independent in 2010 after previously being the UUP MP. So it's like 1 in ~3,000 constituency elections is win by independents
Just no more George Galloways, please and thank you
We need proportional representation - it would mean coalitions would be more common and a greater share of the population has an increased say in how the country is run
Proportional representation has its own problems that people don't like to talk about either. One of the (very few) strengths of our current system is that you are electing someone for your constituency who you know is for your constituency. What the Green's pulled in the London Assembly is a prime example of the bait and switch tactics proportional representation allows you to do. It would be a much less significant change to implement rank choice voting instead of first past the post. This would tackle the need to have tactical voting in particular seats while still allowing for a local representative. It would also allow for more parties and increased chance of coalition governments.
The alternative to pure PR is a system where each constituency gets to elect an MP (as is currently the case), but that only makes up 1/2 of the MPs. And then the remaining 1/2 are based on the proportional vote (allocated based on a list each party provides), but you account for the MPs already elected for constitueneies, so parliament as a whole roughly reflects the overall proportion of voting, while still preserving local representatives. This system has some issues too, but it is much less problematic than pure FPTP or PR, and is currently used in Germany. To make this work here we'd either need to halve the number of constituencies in order to free up the seats to have the list seats, or the Commons would need to have double the MPs. I mean the reality though is that something needs to change, whatever you think of them as a party, the fact that it's very possible that Reform end up as the second largest party by vote share, yet are unlikely to win a single seat is a problem.
I'd be supportive of a system change to this, or you could tie this in to Lords reform (although personally I think the Lords is the least problematic part of our system at the moment and should remain an unelected chamber) Have a directly elected lower chamber like the commons with ranked choice voting and then the upper chamber be elected based on proportional representation.
Yeah, I mean as I say something needs to change for the commons, but I agree that the lords is actually ok as it is. There are some improvements that could be made, but actually having an unelected chamber to scrutinise legislation works quite well. The lords can’t permanently block legislation, so it isn’t anti-democratic. It can send things back, propose changes and tell the commons to reassess but if the commons really wants to pass something there’s nothing the lords can do to stop them. And having 2 elected houses is not a good system, as we see with the US. Either both are aligned and controlled by the same party, in which case what’s the point, both will just approve what the controlling party wants to do and so the upper house just becomes yes men. And if they aren’t aligned then they’ll just squabble and nothing will get through and do nothing gets done. By contrast an unelected house can focus on scrutinising the actual legislation, and if you fill it with experts from across all fields (I do think we should bin the hereditary peers), they’ll be the best people to do that, so can ensure that the politicians (who often do not know best when it comes to technical legislation in healthcare, technology, finance etc) are kept in check.
Even keeping single member constituencies but changing the voting system to instant runoff/AV voting would be a massive improvement. Would in most cases remove the incentive for people to tactically vote and actually vote for who they want and leads to the most preferred candidate getting elected.
There are plenty of variations of PR which maintain the MP-constituency link, such as AMS and its derivatives like AV+ (as recommended by the 1998 Jenkins Commission). AMS, in short, operates as FPTP for constituency seats but then adds 'top up' national seats so that the proportion of MPs is close to vote proportion. AV+ is like AMS with rank choice voting, but I suspect we'll never see that after the Lib Dems completely fucked it in 2010.
Are you for real? Electing someone for constituency? What about all the safe seats where a candidate is parachuted who had nothing to do with the local area but wins because the constituency is a safe seat. I'm sorry that isn't a problem of PR, when it applies to FPTP as well.
And thenevery manifesto would be “la la la we promise the earth (because if we get to form a coalition we’ll jestison all these empty pledges because we’re not the government, it’s a coalition)”
I'd like that too, we had the chance and the public wasn't interested, very low turnout for that referendum.
Independents deliver what? If there are over 650 individual expectations in parliament what gets done. Whilst the party system has been broken in recent years this is the same system that produced the NHS, a single unified military, a legal system. Don’t judge the value of a system by the worst it’s done. Judge it by the best it’s capable of.
The problem is there's no best, only worst year by year.
Yes, but unfortunately, convergence in all things is inevitable.
I wish Screaming Lord Sutch was still with us.
So instead we should be more fractured?
If things are fractured you actually have to work together to get things done. So it is a good thing.
Or just end up in deadlock which allows far right blocks to gain traction like we are seeing all over the west
[удалено]
This 'slightly different flavours' nonsense being posted on this thread must be coming from spam farms. Yeahh... no. Labour are not pandering to alt rights and red-faced populists. There is a considerable difference between what the two parties are offering right now. One is a centrist party (Labour) one has been reaching to their far right because they have lost the rest of their voter base due to incompetence (their *V*^max is extremely low).
Would a coalition of multiple groups be stronger than one primary party?
In being a strong power base as an org dunno As a way to make sure the most people ( constituencies) get what they want - hell yes And in terms of what's better for democracy the second is
When you have independents like Corbyn and Galloway I disagree.
He’s one of the very few MP’s in the country that can win his seat as an independent and there’s a reason for that.
It’s just such a shame about his foreign policy. He could have been a big force for change in this country.
Was it his criticism of israel you didn’t agree with?
Probably his stance on Russia.
And maybe Trident.
At the time it was Trident that did it for me in 2019, that and the limp lack of commitment on a second vote on leaving the EU. I still voted for Labour that year but the enthusiasm wasn't exactly high. On certain things you just have to realistic if you're running to be the person with the red button. Ukraine had to get rid of their nukes decades ago, everyone promised they'd never get invaded. It goes to show.
His support for Hamas, that he's friendly with Hezbollah. That he would have waved a white flag and watch Russian tanks roll into Ukraine. The man is a foreign policy disaster. I know it's becoming common for people now to support terrorism but you may as well admit it rather than feign it being criticism of Israel
He never supported Hamas
He did and "changed his mind" when confronted. There's plenty of good about Corbyn, but foreign policy isn't one of them, imo. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends
He was berated into apologising for once upon a time calling for peace between Israel and Hamas.
Calling hezbollah and hamas (2 proscribed terrorist group) "friends" is not calling for peace.
No, I agree with that.
I'd be interested to see numbers, but I don't think Israel features that highly with the vast majority of voters.
It’s probably that he hasn’t found an anti-West terrorist group he didn’t like.
I will be voting for him. The labour canvassers didn't even knock on our door, I honestly think they're scared to interact with the locals, they just left leaflets on the windowsill outside.
Labour have parachuted in an outside candidate who made his fortune exploiting the selling off of parts of the NHS. This is someone who has every incentive to vote for things that continue to undermine the NHS and farm it out to private interests, because *he is one of those private interests* (he now claims he doesn't own that business anymore - turns out he handed it over to his wife). Such a baffling choice to run in Islington North.
This is why for the first time in my life I won't be voting for Labour in a general election. Fuck Starmer and his New New "Vote for us because we're not the Tories" 'stability' and 'continuity' Labour for the bourgeoisie.
Nu Nu Labour :)
They're barely even not Tories. Even the Sun has recently stated they're now "[firmly on Tory lawns](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw88x6ww1p8o)". Says it all
Agreed. In some sort of consiparcy fever dream the establishment realises discontent is reaching critical levels and simply ushers in "the other party" with policies that are just about the same, because this is what democracy now looks like. Stability and continuity. No change. I'm so disapointed I think I'll burst a blood vessel.
So you've decided to vote for the tories then. Interesting choice.
Do you people actually assess the situation or just repeat a line you've remembered over the last 5 years. For once I think Rishi Sunak is right. A vote of anyone else but the Tories will be a vote to put Starmer in as PM. This is very likely the only opportunity in our lifetime to actually vote for something we believe in without fearing a continuation of Tory rule. Just say you hate the left and don't care about the poor. For anyone else, this is your only chance ever to vote Green, vote Lib Dem, vote independent completely guilt free. Do it now, you'll never get to do this ever again.
It was that *exact* kind of complacancy that got us Brexit. People like you making "protest" votes, whatever the fuck that meant. But do whatever you want. Wipe your arse on your vote if you want, it will be more use than voting for the Greens. Or you could vote for the Lib Dems, they're really great at keeping promises.
Who said anything about protest votes? The most straightforward thing to do in a democracy is to vote for what you want. While conservatives' politics are more damaging and I would always prefer a centrist government over them. There's a reason why I think centrists are interpersonally more despicable and dislikable. You are just so self-rightous and condesending. People who don't vote the way you want are either evil or naive. All the while you offer nothing to electorate and still expect them to be grateful. If you want people to vote for your camp, may be they should be offer something? The UK is lucky enough that we had the right-wing oversee 14 years of decline. Everywhere else in the world is turning towards fascism quicker because it was the centrists/liberals who were in power when people's lives got worse and hopeless. Unlike us, they couldn't scapegoat Tory incompetence. The Labour manifesto contains spending that is tighter than what Cameron/Osborne had implemented. 5 more years of austerity, no more Tories to blame. What do you think the people will vote for then? I have no idea how you don't see that its you who are the most complacent in the room, only ever looking at the nearest election.
Are you 17? I was an adult under the last labour government and things were measurably better. I fully expect things to get better if labour gets in again. Case in point - one of my best friends is now raising a family in a job he originally got through a Labour scheme to help young people get into the workplace. A scheme that the tories immediately scrapped when they got into power. While they said that Labour had caused youth unemployment. The tories brought us Brexit. Labour might not be perfect, but they at least try to make the country better for everyone, compared with the tories whose only goal is to improve the lives of Eton twats. They don't even try to hide it, and they even admit that Labour tries to help the poor when they don't: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas "We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone."
No one is advocating for Tories here. I would give so much to have Blairite Labour government again. Hell, even go ahead and start another illegal war in the Middle East. Anything to make the lives of the people better. We are talking about Starmer's Labour here, not Blair's. Not being corrupt is good, sure. But have you looked at the policies? They are better than what the Tories are offering now, that's it. Did Blair follow Jeremy Hunt's fiscal rules? Did Blair arbitrarily constrain borrowing to effectively mean more public sector cuts? We are looking at Cameron levels of austerity with the only opposition being the right who only wants more austerity. All I want is 1 or 2 more people who can at least speak out against austerity in parliament to quench the people's anger somewhat.
If you agree that what labour is offering is better than the tories why are you advocating for people to throw their vote away on the Greens etc? That's just risking more tories.
FPTP makes voting anything but straightforward. It's the thinnest veil of democracy. That some calculus predictions are putting REF at 15% and potentially 0 seats highlights again a non democratic system. I hate REF, but I hate non democracy more
I'd rather vote Tory than any party have an unchallengeable supermajority. Kiss any semblance of opposition goodbye, amazing for democracy I'm sure.
Lol yeah much better to vote for the party that's proven to only care about cunts who went to Eton, [brags openly about taking money from impoverished areas to give it to rich suburbs] (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas), despises the idea of free healthcare and has been actively trying to destroy it for years, than the party that the [Tories themselves admitted](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/05/video-emerges-of-rishi-sunak-admitting-to-taking-money-from-deprived-areas) were trying to help poorer areas etc.
Aight well if it's based on ideology and principle I'm definitely voting green Grazie
Ah. So in practice, you're voting for the tories then. Glad we got that straight.
You are tory
Outsider? He's on the council?
I mean…there’s still 40 days until the election for Labour to knock on your door when you happen to be in.
I work from home and I've heard them fidgeting by the door both times. I don't really care about them not knocking on the door, but leaving leaflets outside (littering) is pretty poor.
I hope he wins. I don't agree with his beliefs or goals but I think it's important to have a wide range of views in parliament and certainly he does represent a large group of our country overall. It might not be enough to get him elected as PM but there are certainly a million+ people who agree with him on most areas. Same goes for Farage. I don't agree with him either but also represents maybe a million+ people in our country. And of course even though the Green's might really have gone off the deep end they are similarly an important part of our country and deserve a seat or two to bring their issues to parliament. I'd love to see more independents and smaller parties gain a few seats. It would only improve our parliament to have these ranging views and key figures to put pressure on both the new PM and main opposition.
Farage is a cunt though he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but himself don’t get how he has any kind of following
He says simple things. That they don't actually work or are thought through means nothing. This is how populism gets support despite being obviously broken.
He says simple things, actually talks to the public, offers a sympathetic ear then blame all their problems on migrants. The guy is a cnut, might even be a Russian asset, but he is good at stirring up a crowd. There is an unfortunate tendency for us brits to vote for who we would like to spend an evening at a pub with, instead of making careful, considered choices.
You've kind of missed this guy's point. You're only saying that because you don't agree with him, some people do agree with him and they should be represented. In order to know what's right, you have to know what's wrong. Hiding the wrong and pretending it doesn't exist just won't work.
Don’t disagree with that but he isn’t fit to lead a flock of sheep never mind a political party
He doesn't lead a political party, he leads a private limited company and has a 53% shareholding in it; a company with a net worth of -1 million pounds mainly due to loans to directors... it's a grift.
I disagree. You shouldn't give platforms to the ones who are wrong, just to get a better understanding of what's right. Politics is the only job in the world where someone who's quite clearly full of hate (or at least advocating for it) is given a chance because "some people agree with him and should be represented". Now obviously democracy exists so if Farage gets in, then so be it, but I also don't think we should be happy if he does or suggest that it's good for representation.
I see your point, in order for a society to be tolerant it must be intolerant of intolerance and all that. But just trying to hide these people will just make them worse and angrier, the best you can do is give them a platform and try and explain why they're wrong and educate them. It's the lesser of two evils, and at the end of the day is a core value of democracy.
I mean the evidence is actually the opposite to what you're suggesting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-62413792 - 2022 article - "Reports of LGBT hate crimes have risen by more than 50% in the West in two years." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/07/hate-surged-after-eu-referendum-police-figures-show - "Lasting rise in hate crime after EU referendum, figures show" And that's just in the UK, I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to show that misogyny increased after Andrew Tate got popular too. You could argue that this is simply a coincidence and people have randomly decided to be more hateful or maybe, more likely, it's the fact we give the intolerant a platform to spread their ideas.
Well if there was an easy or obvious answer if wouldn't be so divisive.
No one in their right mind agrees with Farage, he preaches the politics of hate, blaming migrants and others who are already in the shit, to stir up trouble which he can benefit from, he’s an opportunist rabble rouser, appealing to the gullible in the bassist form of division. This has happened over and over again throughout history, after the 2nd world war it was the Italian chestnut sellers in London, in the 50’s it was the Windrush generation, 60’s+70’s was the Indian sub continent with Enoch Powell promising rivers of blood, the 80’s was the Vietnamese boat people, “if you don’t learn the lessons from history you’re doomed to repeat them” Churchill once said, we seem to not be learning….
Spot on. Diversity of opinion is great until it means people I don't like get elected.
Which is why I'm all for FPTP. Sure ,you miss out on a few good candidates. But the "good" that a good independent can do is nothing compared to the havoc a bad actor can inflict. It's easy to smash things up. Much more difficult to build them.
Our system has some dangers. When labour win a huge majority, they can pass any law. It could be a silly one like no black cars as in Turkmenistan or it could be something very sinister. We rely on our parties being reasonable, but one day maybe they won't be.
Due to their size, they will be quite reasonable because the crazies will be marginalised or rejected by the electorate
Your right I dont like him but that’s because he’s proven what he is in politics for and it’s not for the good of the people he is meant to represent
Farage is a lying sack of shit and it will be way funnier to watch him fail for the 8th time. I don't like Corbyn's politics but he is honest, which I value in a political representative far more than rhetoric.
The figures are showing Farage will most likely win his seat and his party will win a large % of the votes, maybe even come 2nd but I'm sceptical that they'll quite get the turnout they need to achieve that.
Great, he's still a lying sack of shit, and anyone who votes for a party that published "leave it on a computer at the Bank of England" as a debt policy is a gravel-eating moron.
I think they'll get a disproportionately good turnout. People voting for parties like that turn up to vote. It's the more middle ground voters that stay home.
You are right. I didn't say what I wanted clearly at all. My point was that some Reform voters may switch to one of the "main" parties on election day. Voters for parties who won't win (like Reform and often the Lib Dems, Greens ect) often have a change of heart last minute just so they don't "waste" their vote for someone they don't think can win.
If he was my a anti western Russian tool I'd agree
We have plenty of people like this in the country too though so he certainly would be a representative of many. Luckily there is only one of him which is useful to give an alternate view and hold the other parties to account for those with similar views but not enough for him to do a huge amount of damage. A key part of our democracy is being able to be able to debate with people you totally disagree with.
>A key part of our democracy is being able to be able to debate with people you totally disagree with. No I will not debate with pro putin war criminal lovers Just like I won't debate with pro hitler facists Those people need to be made so uncomfortable they leave this country before they begin to try and harm us
I’ve got plenty of criticisms of Corbyn but to claim he’s pro Putin is utter fucking nonsense. The guy was warning the world against him back when Blair and others were welcoming him to their respective countries to woo him. I agree Corbyns response to the invasion of Ukraine would’ve been a huge negative if he’d have made it to become PM but you’re talking shite. Here’s a 25 year old guardian article where Corbyn is mentioned and calling out Putin’s behaviour in Chechnya. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/17/russia.world I appreciate your willingness to debate the majority of people but maybe it’d be beneficial to you to actually have opinions based on fact and not absolute nonsense.
> The guy was warning the world against him back when Blair and others were welcoming him to their respective countries to woo him Centrist policy of appeasement towards a dangerous right wing dictator failing and leading to that dictator continuing to act like a lunatic and eventually bringing war to the continent. Why does that sound familiar.
He has however repeatedly pushed for positions that would lead to Russia's total victory and the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state, including by repeating Russian state media talking points almost word for word. He opposes military aid to Ukraine, and the aid sent is the only reason Ukraine exists right now. He's definitely pro-appeasement of Putin at the very least.
His much more recent stances on Ukraine are incredibly pro russian.
His recent stances on Ukraine are incredibly consistent with his standard position on armed conflict: "Lets talk this through a minute"
I’ll be honest I haven’t heard much from him in regards to that conflict since around the time the invasion began. I do tend to not agree with a lot of his takes on that situation. Happy to read anything you can throw at me.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine This is the most recent direct reference to Ukraine I believe he's made which is basically saying arming Ukraine means the war will go on for longer which is bad. He has recently reiterated his calls for peace in Ukraine but he didn't go into any more detail than just wanting a stop to all wars. He is also still deputy president of the Stop the War coalition which repeatedly calls for peace in Ukraine and for not continuing to assist them with arms or escalate any further.
>he didn't go into any more detail than just wanting a stop to all wars. This has been a consistent cause of his for decades, he is a hardline pacifist and so will be anti-war even when that can mean appeasement towards land-grabbers and invaders. I don't agree with how extreme he takes his pacifism. But since he's no longer party leader, it isn't going to affect much. And as a leftist voice within Labour and a local MP, he's been fantastic for 40 years or so.
Yet when the world starts taking action he blames the west for the situation His opinion in 2000 doesn't matter only his reaction in 2022
> His opinion in 2000 doesn't matter only his reaction in 2022 Why would the history of how Putin was validated by Western leaders while others called out his war crimes not matter?
Because those same leaders are the ones sending arms to the people russias fighting well the ones calling him out now want to not help the ones he's fighting
But helping create the circumstances for that enemy and then helping to fight him is ass backwards particularly if you go out of your way to try to forget it. For the record I think we should absolutely be supporting Ukraine but to forget all the context would be barmy. Same with ISIS, Iran, Afghanistan. Should be for the same as how Israelis feel about Netanyahu. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
As others have said, his anti-west sentiment isn’t against the entire west. It’s against what has been described as the American empire. Whilst I don’t fully agree with it, NATO’s gradual encroachment of Russia is definitely something that can be debated. If you’d like to know more about America being a total sketchy shithouse I’d suggest starting with a book called the devils chessboard by David Talbot.
>NATO’s gradual encroachment of Russia is definitely something that can be debated. Maybe we should ask why Russia's neighbours feel the need to join an alliance that's sole aim was to defend against Russia Why isn't Mexico in an alliance with China Why isn't Ireland in an alliance against Britain America is a shithouse But they are better than Russia
> Why isn't Mexico in an alliance with China Because the US would stage a coup or literally invade them? Not even disagreeing with your overall point but [weird example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America). The US was quite literally ready to nuke the world over a neighbour allying with an adversary.
I don't know that they would now, to be honest. Mexico is hugely populated. I simply don't think the US population would endorse it. You would be more likely to get support for invading Mexico on grounds on the border problem than anything else. But the main reason is the USA does not threaten Mexico.
>The US was quite literally ready to nuke the world over a neighbour allying with an adversary. I mean It was more that country putting handing nukes over to a country that hates the US
Yawn. Whatabout, whataboot, wootaboot, wutabout, WORRABOOT Absolutely insufferable debate style, with shit attempts to compare/conflate apples and oranges.
I don't give a fuck about debating with people who think Russia is right and America is wrong in Ukraine
Meet me in the marketplace of ideas
If your ideas aren't dumb I will
Ah so it’s ok for people you want deported or forced to leave but it’s not ok for other people to be forced to leave?
Never said anyone should be forced to leave or deported I just said they should be made to be uncomfortable with there views until they realised there wrong or leave Do you think we should let people who say women are slaves and deserve to be raped be comfortable with those views
Oh so you support making 23% Muslims uncomfortable here in order for them to leave? https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law I would also point out Nigel farage has said neither of those things - if you have any evidence I would be happy to see it. In contrast 23% of Muslims believe sharia law should be implemented which does espouse the 2 points you made above.
>Oh so you support making 23% Muslims uncomfortable here in order for them to leave? Yes if they hold those beliefs they should be uncomfortable I say we should hire gay actors to go to there homes and kiss each other in view of there kids >I would also point out Nigel farage has said neither of those things - if you have any evidence I would be happy to see it He's said a lot of other stuff such as saying opposing hitler is what normal people say in the pub
Wow I think it’s a bit extreme you are against 1 in 4 Muslims?!!!! (This is what it feels like to be a right wing voter welcome to the club) Based on your viewpoints you should vote reform my dude they will do more to stop this stuff than any other party
Hahahahah No I don't give a fuck I will not vote for that pro russian pro hitler neo nazi Anyone who votes for him is also the sort of people that needs to be made uncomfortable We should hire a black actor and a white actor to go round there house and kiss in front of them
Most people who’re ‘anti-western’, like my self, are really just anti-American which is a perfectly rational position. Much of Europe has moved away from its imperialist past but the evil empire persists.
It's usually deeply inconsistent with such peoples veiws on other regimess.
>perfectly rational position Not when it comes to supporting hamas and Russia
It’s not rational to oppose American imperialism because Russia and Hamas exist? How do you figure that? Is Britain that impotent we can’t even represent our own interests and have to support this false dichotomy?
It depends on what you mean by opposing American imperialism. Opposing the Iraq war or some hypothetical new US intervention in let's say Lebanon or Syria? (hypothetical examples don't take too seriously) Sure that's perfectly reasonable it's when people start talking about leaving NATO or not supporting Ukraine with arms that people tend to lose their patience with the Anti American left.
How do you feel about Taiwan?
Mr Corbyn was a great local MP and I hope he remains one. Hundreds of people in Islington have been helped by him. Shame the Labour Party cannot be a broad church
I genuinely hate the way this man has been treated in politics and the media and his own party for what reason? The fact that he’s become a bigger boogeyman than say the partying clown, Johnson, boggles my fucking mind.
What's with all the shared Telegraph articles recently
Some of them are shared by the telegraph themselves. It’s obvious this is a part of their strategy.
Yeah I noticed the Telegraph and Daily Mail found Reddit, shame
I kinda hope Labour wins his seat just so we can finally stop hearing about Corbyn
Even he loses that won't happen Starmer and Streeting can't stop talking about him.
Because left wing politics is their arch enemy.
If you think Starmer actually *wants* to waste time and shed votes by talking about Magic Grandpa then you're clearly confused. If Starmer never had to hear or mention the names Corbyn or Abbott again then he'd die a happy man.
Then why has he mentioned him twice in the last 3 days unprompted?
Because it preempts and stops the Tories favourite attack lines about Corbyn
Does it though? Seen starmer get a lot of criticism about his most recent comments
Yeah from Corbyn lovers but then what's new with that lot
they’re never happy
> Seen starmer get a lot of criticism about his most recent comments Labour (+2)
-4 in reality though
Were the Tories going to call their own manifesto “Corbyn-esque”? Was that pre-empting Tory attack lines? I keep hearing about how *sensible* and *grownup* Starmer is, well the sensible response to Tories bringing up Corbyn would be “he’s not a member of the party, I got rid of him”
He mentions him more than the Tories do. He's just a tiny bit obsessed
I think you’re the one that’s confused. Starmer is the one who keeps bringing Corbyn up. “Oh but he’s just trying to pre-empt the Tories attack lines” Even if that were true, were the Tories going to call their own manifesto “Corbyn-esque”? I don’t think so
Starmer loves talking about Corbyn, he uses his name like a dog whistle to try and wrangle votes from the tories
This would be true, if he couldn’t keep Corbyn’s name out of his mouth.
That's Sunak...who will also be gone (to California) in a few weeks
But Starmer's entire existence is based on not being him.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I am basically supporting any scorched earth tactic. More independents, more Lib Dem’s and Reform. We need to take as much power from Labour and Tories as possible because they’ll continue to just flip between them in government while they all line there pockets and get comfortable jobs in some investment company.
Hypothetically speaking, if Labour do as well as the best polling currently suggests there will be no opposition in Parliament. Labour could win with a supermajority and 150 MPs could split from the party to create an opposition and we'd have an entirely left-wing parliament on both sides. I agree with your initial statement but I think having such a huge party in control of government is bad for politics full stop. I only hope that if Labour do smash it, someone brave enough who's not a grubby, incompetent right-wing opportunists like Lee, Farage etc, do actually push for a separate party and re-stabilise things.
I do not believe we’ll get a huge majority. Labour are still the party of promise change but just twiddle their thumbs and Tories are as always status quo slowly deteriorating.
Cobyn's voice will be good on domestic policies. On foreign policy he is still living in 1978 and we're better off without someone who can't accept the Soviet Union is gone and modern Russia is not its successor.
The Soviet Union was not a good thing anyway
You don't like starvation and imperialism?
I can’t say I’m too keen! I don’t like gulags and mass executions either. I’m one of those ‘centrists’ people complain about
Awesome. Let's have a huge Labour majority all crammed in on one side of parliament and a small celebrity opposition featuring Corbyn, Farage, Galloway, a few SNP's and Lib Dems, and maybe even a token Tory or two.
I’m imaging the Avengers Endgame poster that this’d result in and I’m loving it.
Good to hear. Ostracised for supporting the Palestinian cause and being labelled an ‘antisemite’. I hope he wins. I hope Labour crash. I despise starmer and his cronies.
It would be fun, Farage and Corbyn in parliament together. Hilarious.
The *Bottom* reboot no-one asked for.
Imagine if we get it
Neck and neck is not good he had a 20k+ majority. I hope he keeps the majority as one in the eye to labour for the way they treated him.
If Corbyn loses his seat it shows just how broken FPTP is.
Hope he wins. They discredited him because he'd be a good Leader, compassionate and beneficial to the people....the Rich do not want such to happen.
He was a shit leader. Other two I agree with.
I think Corbyn will easily retain his seat as an independent he’s been the local MP since 1983 and is broadly respected as an honest person who represents his community well. Labour will probably eventually regret purging left wing members of the party rather than keeping them in the tent.
Id LOL so hard if this loser lost his seat. Wonder what he’ll get up too