New party latest.

[Andy_W]

Well Corbyn is three years younger than Trump and six years younger than Biden but who is to say that he will even be leader at the next GE. The Important thing is that we have another party championing the things laid out in the announcement.

I don't think either of those are good examples, they're about as bad as it gets, on both sides if their fight, and he's going to be campaigning when older than they are.

This just seems like a spiteful inside hatchet job, he had his chance, just let the bloke who actually won get on with it.

 

[Nano]

So the party will have 5%, or are they banking on taking some Greens, Lib Dems and Tories too? This will still leave it as a Reform v Labour battle? If Labour's vote gets split then it won't even be a contest.

There were 3m more Labour voters in 2017 than there were in 2024. There's lot's of people that could turn to an alternative left-wing party. There were 3m Lib Dems and 2m Greens at the last election and 4m Reform. Don't forget that votes tend to be concentrated so Labour wins in cities that see a deflection to Corbyn could be enough to take seats from them, the same way Reform did from Tories.

It's extremely unlikely that a Corbyn party could win the next GE but it's not unlikely that they could do what Reform have done and flip Labour. A one-off Reform government that leads to the alternative party being left-wing could be way better for the long term than the left wing choice being centre-right Labour indefinitely.

I don't think Corbyn would intend to lead the party either.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

This just seems like a spiteful inside hatchet job, he had his chance, just let the bloke who actually won get on with it.

He didn't have his chance, he was sabotaged by his own party including the bloke who won, and let's face it, Starmer has no interest in most of the stuff in the announcement so won't be getting on with the same things.

Some people believe we need a left wing voice so why not let them get on with it?

 

[1finny]

The problem with all of that is the state of the public finances. Labour can’t do what we would like them to do because the money isn’t there.

Public finances are in a terrible state - I agree.

Some of what Starmer had done - attempting to punch down in the disabled, the rivers of blood speech have nothing to do with money.

He will lose votes to the left because of that.
Not a good idea when Farage is neck and neck anyway.

More importantly - introduce a form of PR and Farage has little to no chance of impacting our country.

He isn’t doing that either - despite the majority of the party voting for it at conference.

If it comes to pass, and I don’t think it will, a Farage victory will be ‘on’ this government as Brexit was on the Tories.

 

[zzzzz]

Rumoured for some time and announcement delayed because of..........

Infighting....... between the two of them. You couldn't make that up.

Not like Corbyn that. FFS.

 

[Andy_W]

There were 3m more Labour voters in 2017 than there were in 2024. There's lot's of people that could turn to an alternative left-wing party. There were 3m Lib Dems and 2m Greens at the last election and 4m Reform. Don't forget that votes tend to be concentrated so Labour wins in cities that see a deflection to Corbyn could be enough to take seats from them, the same way Reform did from Tories.

It's extremely unlikely that a Corbyn party could win the next GE but it's not unlikely that they could do what Reform have done and flip Labour. A one-off Reform government that leads to the alternative party being left-wing could be way better for the long term than the left wing choice being centre-right Labour indefinitely.

I don't think Corbyn would intend to lead the party either.

3m more voters is irrelevant when you stir up even more on the opposite side and lose, it's a net loss, and an election loss.

Reform have taken a load of Tory votes and seats (largely those far right) and wouldn't have had much chance at the next GE, but this probably now makes it the most likely outcome, great. They're going to make Truss look competent.

Reform have also seemingly taken some Labour votes from those on the right of Labour, I'm unsure why this is but it ain't because Labour are on the right is it?

It's seemingly happening though, Labour will bleed to reform, and Corbyn isn't going to take those back, he would take votes from the Labour left. So Labour end up attacked on both sides, which is all a bit silly after one year, when they've mad more positive changes in that time than 14 years of the previous folk (on all sides).

All this is going to do is split the left to centre vote, at a time when it's under massive threat, I wish people would just be honest and say that.

He's not winning the GE, he couldn't win the two horse race when the Tories were weak, so he's not winning a 4 horse race. He needs more votes and seats than reform. He's talking about Gaza when they're talking about immigration. It's policy rank 20 v rank 1, in the eyes of our voters overall. Our voters are dicks, but they still will be voting, can't ignore that.

Of course he's going to want to be leader, and of course everyone joining in on this, voters and MP's is going to want him to be leader, it's nailed on.

It likely won't be a one of reform government, if they do win, they would be doing it under confidence and supply (as a coalition with the Tories, who they will then blame), and when that doesn't work they will likely kill off the Tories and win outright. We could end up with those clowns for 15 years. If Labour had that time they could really turn things around, but things won't be turned around fully in 1,5,10 years, people need to understand this. The Tories dug a very deep hole, in many ways.

We've got a lot of people on the centre, centre right, right, far right and they're not going to disappear. It's going to take a long time before they die off and are replaced enough with left leaning voters, we might be ~10-20 years from that.

The only way to winning or holding power at the minute is holding enough of the centre.

 

[Andy_W]

The problem with all of that is the state of the public finances. Labour can’t do what we would like them to do because the money isn’t there.

Exactly. We can't spend our way out of trouble either, not when it will go onto the debt, which we're struggling to pay off.

Every other time we've been in major debt we've had more growth to bail that out, the major growth is not coming this time, as we've already pretty much grown to our limit. Now it's the ROW time to catch up, and they're going to catch up and take over, they're taking our growth basically. The birth rate is also through the floor, this is a massive problem, you can't grow without people, unless you have some crazy niche, which we don't.

It's like this:
We have 2.5 trillion GDP, and debt is 100% of GDP it's 2.5 trillion debt, 125bn a year to service that debt (that's a HS2 per year, in interest effectively).
If we grow our GDP 10%, we now have 2.75 trillion GDP, and if we're not operating in deficit the debt stays at 2.5 trillion, so now you're at 90% debt to GDP. You bring debt to GDP down by growing the economy and staying on budget.

What doesn't work is not growing as much, but increasing debt to GDP. You can't invest your way out of trouble either, China has massive problems with this and they've been up there with the fastest growing economies on the planet recently (as they were coming from behind).

 

[Andy_W]

That’s unlikely to be true. We don’t have much of a recent tradition of having credible populist parties on the hard right and the hard left at the same time, but everywhere that does shows a surprising amount of bleeding of support directly between them bypassing the centre. No reason we should be an exception.

You really don't think loads of extra voters won't come out and vote against Corbyn? They did it in the last two elections he was part of. For every one he gains, he gets 1.1 voting against him.

Who from reform is going to vote Corbyn? Reforms priorities are immigration, selfishness and hate, what's Corbyn going to offer them?

 

[JackG]

You really don't think loads of extra voters won't come out and vote against Corbyn? They did it in the last two elections he was part of. For every one he gains, he gets 1.1 voting against him.

Who from reform is going to vote Corbyn? Reforms priorities are immigration, selfishness and hate, what's Corbyn going to offer them?

They won't vote for Labour, though. Corbyn will offer people a party that supporters of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide don't run.

 

[Andy_W]

He didn't have his chance, he was sabotaged by his own party including the bloke who won, and let's face it, Starmer has no interest in most of the stuff in the announcement so won't be getting on with the same things.

Some people believe we need a left wing voice so why not let them get on with it?

Of course he did, he was a bad leader and a strong leader would have got a grip on any issues he or Labour had.

I'm sure Starmer (Labour) has an interest in all of it, but you either work within a budget or you don't. If you're going over budget you better be guaranteeing a lot of growth, most don't see this growth coming, for the UK.

Starmer's trying to sort the NHS out, this is going to take a long time
They've started GB energy, took down the onshore wind ban and are looking to try and sort out our ludicrous energy bidding system.
Water is a money pit, 90% of it's assets are end of life, only a clown would buy that, and take it back into public hands.
The UK already owns Network Rail, which is the worst part of the rail system.
Mail is a dying industry, it should have been done away with by now, and Royal Mail have zero chance of getting ground back in the parcels game.
Labour has promised more houses (not sure about council houses, but we do need mroe of those), but you need builders, labour and construction companies to be able to do that, where are they coming from? They're trying to cut red tape on planning too, but good luck with that, with our NIMBY's.

 

[Andy_W]

They won't vote for Labour, though. Corbyn will offer people a party that supporters of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide don't run.

Aye they won't, but Labour won last time, and had more votes and seats than the other side, they did their job.

Again, talking about Gaza, it's ranked bottom on the UK's priorities list, you can't base a party on that. As well as it's oversimplification of probably the most complicated war in the world, which Labour have repeatedly asked for a cease fire, hostage release, territory agreement, increases in aid and have started imposing sanctions. What extra is Corbyn going to do?

 

[GibbosEmpire]

Already signed up

 

[Boro12]

They won't vote for Labour, though. Corbyn will offer people a party that supporters of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide don't run.

and they will ignore the atrocities committed by Arabs in Yemen and Sudan.

 

[FishofContemplation]

Both parties are to blame???? Tories in power for 14yrs Labour for 1yr!! Nothing was going to get sorted immediately. They are going to make mistakes along the way but I can't understand people saying they are the same as the Tories. Just don't see it

That’s a bit of a selective statistic though. Why 15 years? Why not 20, 25, 30, 50? Taking the century as a whole so far we have 11 Labour years, 9 Tory years, and 5 Tory plus LibDem years. It’s not totally irrational to consider that all three share some responsibility for where we are as we enter its second quarter.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I'm sure Starmer (Labour) has an interest in all of it, but you either work within a budget or you don't. If you're going over budget you better be guaranteeing a lot of growth, most don't see this growth coming, for the UK.

This has no bearing on what I said.

Starmer's trying to sort the NHS out, this is going to take a long time

Corbyn is talking of a fully funded NHS not increased funding for outsourcing.

They've started GB energy, took down the onshore wind ban and are looking to try and sort out our ludicrous energy bidding system.

Corbyn's answer is public ownership of energy, rail, water and mail.

Water is a money pit, 90% of it's assets are end of life, only a clown would buy that, and take it back into public hands.

There are no alternatives for cleaning up the industry and clean drinking water and sewage treatment should be a given in this country just like in just like in every developed country. What's your alternative?

Labour has promised more houses (not sure about council houses, but we do need mroe of those), but you need builders, labour and construction companies to be able to do that, where are they coming from?

Sounds like Labour have promised stuff they can't deliver (see your first point).

 

[FishofContemplation]

You really don't think loads of extra voters won't come out and vote against Corbyn? They did it in the last two elections he was part of. For every one he gains, he gets 1.1 voting against him.

That’s plain factually inaccurate as regards 2017.

If you compare the labour vote to the Tory plus UKIP vote it went from 30-49 to 40-44. If you do Labour Tory alone, 30-37 to 40-42. If you do Labour to everyone else 30-70 to 40-60. By all three tenable definitions of “voting against him” the gap closed relative to 2015. The “anti” vote went down not up.

It is fair comment that he still lost, but your 1.1 figure is pure invention.

 

[Andy_W]

This has no bearing on what I said.



Corbyn is talking of a fully funded NHS not increased funding for outsourcing.



Corbyn's answer is public ownership of energy, rail, water and mail.



There are no alternatives for cleaning up the industry and clean drinking water and sewage treatment should be a given in this country just like in just like in every developed country. What's your alternative?



Sounds like Labour have promised stuff they can't deliver (see your first point).

Budget has a bearing on everything, you just didn't want to mention it, it seems.

Where's the funding coming from? He could raise tax, but we know how well that will go down with the rich, the centre or the right.

We don't own much oil and gas, so where's this going to come from?
I wouldn't be against taking NGED back in public hands, and the DNO's if he was going to cut the red tape, because at the minute they're all tied in all sorts of knots.
Don't buy gas transmission, we need to be seeing that off.

We already own rail, it's the worst part of the rail system, how is he going to fix Network Rail? We need this fixing before adding anything else.

Mail is done, should have been done 10 years ago, buying that is a waste of money. Too late now for RM to catch up with Amazon and Evri etc, with parcels.

Water would be a money pit unless they're going to significantly put up the bills to reflect the complicated nature of the industry. They're tied in all sorts of knots as pipes near end of life and they're the deepest of all installed services, so by far the hardest to replace or install new ones (compared to Fibre, Telecom, Gas, Electric in that order).

We have some of the best drinking water in the world, this won't change.

River Quality is difficult as when we first built our sewer network (100-200 years ago) it was using combined systems, and then we build everything on top or those and around them. Now going back and replacing those combined systems with separate foul and surface water, and getting those to where they need to go is extremely difficult. All new housing has had separate systems though, and has done for decades, the problem is the original pipes they sometimes connect into. Water companies prevent you connecting into these combined systems these days though, but that won't solve the old streets. We would need to basically dig up every street which is older than 50 years old to 1.5-5m deep, to fully replace combined systems, can't see that happening due to disruption and cost.

Could catch the combined outfalls and pump them to treatment plants, but this would be mega expensive. £50 water bills won't cover anywhere near this.

Labour are doing what they can within the budget constraints, it's not simple.

 

[Andy_W]

That’s plain factually inaccurate as regards 2017.

If you compare the labour vote to the Tory plus UKIP vote it went from 30-49 to 40-44. If you do Labour Tory alone, 30-37 to 40-42. If you do Labour to everyone else 30-70 to 40-60. By all three tenable definitions of “voting against him” the gap closed relative to 2015. The “anti” vote went down not up.

It is fair comment that he still lost, but your 1.1 figure is pure invention.

It was an example, gaining votes on your side is pointless if those against you gain more, or ultimately have more votes so you lose the election. It's also about seats in FPTP, not votes, everyone knows this.

Half the battle is getting people to not vote against you.

What about 2019? He lost ~2.5m of his votes, Tories stayed the same. Sure, a lot of that was to do with Brexit, but he played a big part in that, or actually his lack of a big part helped create that problem.

 

[JackG]

Aye they won't, but Labour won last time, and had more votes and seats than the other side, they did their job.

Again, talking about Gaza, it's ranked bottom on the UK's priorities list, you can't base a party on that. As well as it's oversimplification of probably the most complicated war in the world, which Labour have repeatedly asked for a cease fire, hostage release, territory agreement, increases in aid and have started imposing sanctions. What extra is Corbyn going to do?

He would start by recognising Palestine as a state.
Starmer is Netanyahu's catchfart. For many on the left, the objective is to remove Starmer and his ilk from power. Ideally, this could come about internally if enough sitting MPs fear for their seats. If not, they'll take their chances in the GE. They won't win, but they'll stop Starmer.

 

[Andy_W]

He would start by recognising Palestine as a state.
Starmer is Netanyahu's catchfart. For many on the left, the objective is to remove Starmer and his ilk from power. Ideally, this could come about internally if enough sitting MPs fear for their seats. If not, they'll take their chances in the GE. They won't win, but they'll stop Starmer.

In a statement on Thursday evening, condemning "unspeakable and indefensible" conditions in Gaza, Sir Keir said statehood was an "inalienable right".

He reiterated his call for a ceasefire in the conflict, adding this would "put us on a path" towards recognising a Palestinian state.

He has previously said the UK should reserve recognition for when it would have the "greatest impact" - without specifying when this would be.

So, if he does, then what? It's probably coming, and hopefully a cease fire is too. Netanyahu's a tosser, pretty much everyone knows this including Starmer, but that doesn't give Hamas validation. That area is going to be fighting forever, and there's very little we can do about it, which would have any meaningful effect.

So, the idea is to remove Starmer, for the lowest ranked priority policy, on the whole list, for UK voters? That doesn't sound very smart, and it will do absolutely zero for Palestine, other than maybe hand over more power to the right.....and guess who they will side with?