General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
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.
they still have the transphobe in charge of candidate selection; i wish zarah joined the greens because corbyn doesn't deserve her
How many days until the next fallout, I wonder.
It's also frustrating that they're so welcoming of religious fundamentalists that are against LGBT people. I don't want to have to hide who I am.
The bungled membership launch totally devastated their credibility when instead it should have been a massive positive event.
I have still joined, but without the hope and passion I had about it. Hopefully it can be recovered. I'm very glad that the Greens will be there for me if not.
This attitude tends to make me grin. It is the very element of right of centre thinking that forms it.
Any truly democratic org will have arguments like this. And any historic look at the greens or labour will show a long history of such fights.
The right wing parties also have such fights. But by nature, the difference in the right is that the current successful are there because they deserve to be. As such, arguments between leaders is seen as a bad thing. When the left by its very nature should see such as evidence of a democratic process.
Having public arguments is one thing, trying to undermine each other by coup like movements is whole another (and does happen in right quite a lot too). The way they handled their internal conflict was completely incompetent and immature. And this comes from someone who was excited at the prospect of this party. Where they could have instead used their energy for reaching out to the public about dangers of current government and potential reform UK, they now have a lot of reputation and image repairing to do.
Another way to look at it. Trying to hide their disagreements from the membership was the fault.
Their were 2 sides to the argument. One side from day one seemed to think not informing the public of plans and disagreements was the correct approach. While the other multiple times announced things that side disagreed on.
Both sides seems a little childish. But ah ATM they are not the actual leaders just acting ones. Until the membership decides, and these arguments give the membership great data to make these choices.
Where as if one side had managed to keep both arguments under wraps as the intended. The membership would be totally uninformed about their management styles.
I agree with you but at the same time I recognise that in practice most people voting in elections aren't primarily looking for evidence of democracy in a party's inner workings, even though perhaps they should be.
Agreed. But what people look for and expect. Is also often the result of media bias.
So the answer may be to counteract the idea that party democracy is important. By showing how it's leck leads to non democratic government.
Approx 60% of voters opposed the very ideals the right stands for. And voted for politics in opposition to such ideals. Yet again and again we have parties running the nation Is low 30s % of support.
More recently even the majority of party members are strongly opposed to the ideals of the current government. Yet anti democratic party processes allow the party to keep the current leadershi0 and policy structure.
This idea needs to be shared everywhere.
Yeah it kind of sucks how efficient right wingers are at rallying behind a single shitty leader. In a FPTP system, it's the downfall of every other party
To be fair we have seen quite a bit of infighting among right-wingers in the last few years though... first the Tories tore themselves apart over Brexit, then they replaced Cameron with Theresa May, more infighting ensued, then we had Boris, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, and now Kemi Badenoch, and some Tories are saying Kemi won't last long - Jenrick clearly wants to replace her. Then there's Reform, and two of their MPs have now left the party - Rupert Lowe has started his own thing called Restore Britain.
Anyway, I don't know what to expect from Your Party but I would be interested to see what policies they propose.
More worrying. Is the ability of the media to convince Left voters, our parties not doing the same. Is a fault in the left.
Note how to force right wing views. The Labour Party leadership needed to reduce democracy within the party. That same idealism is how the right wing parties start out. And why you will see so much questioning of the value of democracy in our parties set up.
It is also why massive multi party unification is the only way the left with defeat the right under FPTP. Also the only way to get rid of FPTP.
By massive unification, I propose all left parties agreeing to not compete against the strongest left competitor in each seat. Then supporting a confidence and supply agreement with the biggest post election party. This way we can force a PR replacement for the next election, and run a democratic left of centre government while in power.
No bickering or infighting or scheming… if anyone’s watching.