General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Well I hope they don't split the vote enough to keep the Conservatives in power.
Do these guys not know how to play FPTP? Or maybe any dark money coming in behind them does..... Would be not the first time they have played the left to keep them out of power. Like Conservatives joining Labour to vote Corybe leader.
There's a conservative with dark money behind him leading the so called "labour" party right now.
I'm sorry he's not left enough for you, but he's nothing like the current Conservative party.
Divide and conquer.
Another one, huh?
There is one Labour party and that is the party that is actually funded by the labour movement. Everything else is just another bourgeois party because it draws its money and its activists from people who have money and time to spare, i.e., middle-class people. It doesn't matter what it calls itself or how it describes itself. It doesn't matter what it says it's going to do in the near-impossible scenario in which it gets elected. The material reality of such a party is that it's middle-class. By contrast, the Labour party is the Labour party. It is imperfect because it's real. It might not even be the best that a party-of-labour hypoethically could be. But it is the party of labour. Everyone else is just a poser. That's it.
Everything else is just another bourgeois party because it draws its money and its activists from people who have money and time to spare, i.e., middle-class people.
Middle-class people are not the bourgeoisie. The division of the working class into upper/middle/lower classes by the ruling class (i.e. the actual bourgeoisie) is one of the many tools they use to distract us and to divide us.
There is one Labour party and that is the party that is actually funded by the labour movement.
I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't Labour get it's funding from a few different sources, not just the labour movement? Lobbying by the ruling class controls a lot of the policies that Labour chooses to adopt. For just one of many examples, see: How big business took over the Labour Party
"Since becoming leader in 2020, Starmer’s Labour has struggled for money. Membership – and the revenue it provides – has dropped by 170,000 in the past three years, while trade union contributions have fallen by more than a million since 2018."
"But the party’s latest accounts, which came out this week, show that the shortfall has now been more than bridged by large donations from rich people and companies. In 2018, the party took £700,000 in donations above the £7,500 reporting threshold (or £1,500 for local parties and the like). So far this year, it’s already taken £12m."
I personally think it would be better if Labour only took money from the unions and from co-ops, but that would be a really quick way to go bankrupt, unless lots of other unions decide to affiliate. So, while Labour doesn't get enough of its money from unions, this new party will get literally all of its money from middle class people. I think a party funded in part by the unions is better than one funded entirely by middle-class people.
There is no point in continuing to strictly adhere to Marx's language when understanding our society. When Marx was writing, the proletariat were majority wage (not salary) earners who didn't have bank accounts. Virtually none of them were property owners, almost by definition. They didn't have the vote and collective bargaining was basically illegal. The material conditions - what Marx actually cared about, to his great credit - have changed completley. The idea of a 'working-class' made up mostly of people who drew salaries, had bank accounts, pensions, and even owned their own homes would have been quite alien to Marx. I think he'd have been impressed but not entirely surprised to find just how flexible capitalism was in this regard!
The unions, however, do represent the actually existing working class, and the only party they fund is the Labour party.
It would be better if Labour only took money from the unions and from co-ops, but that would be a really quick way to go bankrupt, unless lots of other unions decide to affiliate.
Yeah. This is a huge problem, because whilst lobbying exists not everyone in this country has equal power during elections. People with money have more influence, with the bourgeoisie having the most power as they can throw millions into policies which serve their own interests (versus the middle class where individuals may have hundreds or thousands of pounds to throw around).
I don't really know what the solution to this would be in the short term. Whilst we live in a capitalist system, political parties need money in order to exist. As it stands, it seems the best place that money can come from is from unions rather than individuals.
I think a party funded in part by the unions is better than one funded entirely by middle-class people.
I can understand this perspective. Your distrust of the middle-class isn't completely unfounded, I don't think, as it's easier for middle/upper-class folks to be manipulated into believing that policies designed to benefit billionaires/corporations are also of benefit to them. That said, all of us vulnerable to similar manipulation. The amount of underprivileged folk voting for right-wing parties always shocks me.
It's worth noting that no single middle-class person has the money or power to influence any party's policies on their own,funding comes from a large amount of different people with different perspectives, people who I would argue are more likely to work in the interests of the underprivileged versus a single average billionaire/corporation who may have more money and power than all unions combined.
For that reason, personally, I think I would find it easier to trust a party funded entirely by the middle-class versus one which receives any funding from billionaires/corporations. But I suppose that ultimately comes down to how many middle/upper-class folks have been manipulated into working in the best interests of billionaires/corporations. My trust will be badly placed if the majority of middle-class folks are not working in the best interests of the lower-class.
Your distrust of the middle-class isn’t completely unfounded, I don’t think, as it’s very easy for middle/upper-class folks to be manipulated into believing that policies designed to benefit billionaires/corporations are also of benefit to them.
It's not about people being manipulated; it's about the fact that in aggregate people will vote for their class interests. This is why the country's most successful left wing bourgeoisie party, the Greens, is basically a NIMBY party who spend most of their time strongly opposing green development. Their members haven't been manipulated, they're just voting in their own interest as, by and large, wealthy homeowners. Labour, because it still has some funding from the working class as working class people is capable of proposing policies that will, e.g., allow more housing and green developments, while the Green party just isn't. That's class politics at work, and that's why we need Labour.
We've already seen the RMT and BFAWU de-affiliate, union funding has slumped and private donors like Lord Sainsbury now make up the majority of funding.
Private donors will make up 100% of the funding to this new party.
I loathe that the left always have to debate between "splitting the vote" and actually voting for what we believe in.
First-past-the-post is destroying our country. It has no place in a modern democracy. Most major democracies have ditched the system (the US and the UK being in the minority of democracies which continue to use it).
I'm not sure how we can achieve electorial reform when the current system benefits the two most powerful parties in this country (i.e. it benefits both the Tories and Labour).
We've seen this happen before, and it always ends in failure. A small number of Labour Party members leave the party in disgust, an even fewer number are angry and motivated enough to form a new party. It either fizzles out due to burnout, or gets invaded by Trots and destroyed from the inside.
The one example I can think of that's survived for many years is Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, formed in very similar circumstances to now - a decaying, corrupt Tory government almost certain to lose the next election but the leader of the Labour Party was firmly centrist / red Tory (i.e. Blair).
The SLP was set up in 1996 and is still going. After nearly 30 years, how much electoral success has it had? How many people other than ultra-committed political obsessives (such as us!) even know of its existence?
TIL Scargill is still alive.
It's pretty much assured that Galloway will be part of this, and the trots absolutely loathe him.
He ought to join either the Lib Dems or the Greens so as not to split the vote
Neoliberals and neoliberals on bikes aren't left wing.
I think his bringing up Gaza a lot might make them a bit too nervous.