Given polling. Not likely to be such thing as a safe Labour or Tory seat in 2029. Unless something major changes between now and then.

Edit: that is where FPTP is less stable. Once the big parties drop close to 20%. Any party can gain control. As the big parties no longer have an effective splitting the vote threat.

Yeah that really pissed me off.

Even if her comment is entirely honest. (Seriose doubts from me on that)

The whole idea that the UK gov can ban citizens expressing support without telling us why. Go fuck yourselves. That is not government by mandate. It is completely opposed to the concept of democratic rule.

Official secrets are fine. But you do not get to silence democratic opposition while keeping them.

Sorry for multiple replies to one message. But another way to look at it is the following.

Billionaires find it much more practice to control the people working with a leadership team. Then 100ks of members. Even if the cost is low to them. The sheer work involved in controlling a large party via membership is huge. And expensive. Even to them.

Part of the reason you fear membership control. Although you are unaware as all are. Is because billionaires via the media have spent decades arguing against membership lead parties. Simply because far right politics dose not appeal to the masses.

Just looking at recent events. Even reform for all their growth. Is still trying to appeal with left wing politics like nationalising transport and water utilities etc. while desperately trying the deny the far right accusations based on their immigration reform etc. like all historic fasism they have to have an enemy. But concentrate on false claims of harm to lower class people. Rather then selling the right wing ideals their backers require.

But let me ,Ake one thing clear. You would be more then welcome to join Your Party and express these views. You would not be entirely alone. It is a topic discussed a lot. But the majority of members are more worried about the history of every single party being controlled by small groups. Then an oppositional membership in this format.

Nothing ATM. But as the members are attracted to the party through them. It is unlikely we will vote for founding documents that reject that vision entirely.

That vision is a membership lead left wing party. As a founding principle nothing more exists. Once the 4 founding documents are voted on. And accepted by the membership. Then their will be some rules as to party policies. But the basic principal is still membership led.

Here is a more relevent question. Labour was set up as a union supporting working class led party. Yet the leadership opposed the membership by moving to a corperation funded non working class controlled party.

The leadership has refused community Labour Party supported MP candidates and rejected membership voted policies.

It seems a leadership run party is more likely to reject the membership and founding principals then a membership lead party.

This is why many of the left. Who have been lied to and deceived when voting Starmer as a leader. Refuse to join the greens. We tend to love their policies. But are more scared of the future where members cannot control the leadership. Then we are of members overriding leadership.

That is not the ideal that Your Party is set up on. Rules have not yet been agreed. We members get to look at the 4 founding documents and approve or change next week. So exact processes have not been agreed.

But we do know that the foundation is bottom up. Leaders do not get to make policy. Members do. He processes that control that are to be voted on in November. But the membership is clear. Unlike labour. Leaders taking over the party from the majority of the membership will be made impossible. No vote has happened on NATO. So ZSs comment are not in any way Your Party Policy. And no evidence I have seen so far indicates the majority of the membership would vote for leaving.

No idea how old you are. But anyone that grew up pre internet would not use Liberal to describe the left wing of the Labour party. Liberal have not been consider left since the late 1800s when only land owners could vote.

Only American media and politics think of it that way. But over the last 20 year US politics has been embedded in lots of UK right wing media. The Left do not think ofcurrent labour leadership as illibral. But as neolibral IE in support of corporate ownership of all production. Historically Liberalism is support for corperation and wealth. Where as conservatism was support for aristocratic leadership. That is the whole history of our 2 houses. Lords and Commons. Commons was not working class. But rich landowners with no aristocrat background. Supported by the liberal party.

So yes sorry the use of illibral to describe current labour. Is very opposite to whole UK and European idea of liberalism.

Fair point I lost my temper with you.

As a mod you should also consider the attitude of the community as a whole. Who clearly disagree with your opinion on my interpretation of labours actions.

Your arguments for labour. Are basically the equivalent of.

"Look at all the fish in the ocean. Fish have no reason to be nervous around fishermen. "

The fact that labour fails to arrest every voice of opposition. Is absolutely no excuse for you to criticise posters for suggesting they partake in censorship.

The evidence of the governments attempts to limit protest against them are far from hidden.

Also your use of the word illibralism. Is a very clear idea that you or your ideals are entirely American in origin. As no one in the EU considers lirbalism to be a left of centre ideal.

Stop talking out of your arsehole.

People have been arrested for posting online support for PA. You are on a tiny community no one notices.

Your failure to notice the crap around you. Is just that. Your failure. I don’t need to add anything to my original statement. It was clear and accurate.

Your failure is also.

She is not leading the party. Her opinions are worth no ,pre then any other members untill the membership votes in November.

The whole question about the difference between greens and your party. Is answered by. Yp will be membership lead not leadership lead.

Given the party is membership lead I cannot see it making it out of November’s conference.

The media likes to push JC and ZS statements as our Party Policy. While desperately trying to ignore the facts. That no one has any idea what the members will vote for yet. The whole question what is the difference between greens and your Party. Can only be answered. You Party is membership not leadership led. Untill those leaders are selected and members vote on policy. Such questions are stupid.

Utter fucking bull shit.

They had no mandate to support Israel in genocide. And have arrested 1000 for supporting protesters by for the first time ever suggesting property damage is an act of terrorism.

After Starmer himself supported and won an identical case of property damage as not a crime due to opposition to blairs war.

If that is not censorship of opposition you need to reconsider some of the crap your smoking.

Add all the other laws against protest. Them now talking about repeated protest for the same cause being classed as a crime.

Mo fucking way is that statement nonsense.

Along with a few of reforms.

Not to mention censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for.

To torch the rule of law

More to limit the huge list of people they need to bribe. To change laws.

Shutting cross nation treaties down. Makes controlling local governments affordable and practical. Hence why UKIP reform trump and all these right wing arsehole get so much billionaires support. It’s how they gain fudal level control.

The more worrying thing. Is how easy voters are falling for bullshit anti immigration claims.

Not the same people.

This article is a legal opinion. Not a government one. The gov has not admitted that a genocide is happening. Risk of one is still the closest they have gotten.

The current UK gov is consistent in their arsehollery if nothing else.

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.

Fucking disgusting that racist little shits like this. Feel comfortable expressing such opinions around schools.

Unfortunately it’s seems these arseholes are being encouraged by government actions. Dispite the vast majority of voters and polling being opposed to their ideals.

Shows how fucking dangerous FPTP can be when 30% plus is all that is needed to rule. Division becomes a political strategy rather then a risk.

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.

That assumes they had no costs in producing or acquiring the not fit for purpose goods. And that they knew the goods were unfit.

A fraud case would be more about proving they knew the goods would not be fit for purpose. Failing to pay back money when if they did not know. Is just breach of contract.

Proving there knowledge before the event. And the cost of providing the goods. Or the companies wealth to payback the costs of operation while obtaining and shipping the goods. Are all extremely complex to do.

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.