UK Politics
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
A party still needs leadership that guides the core principles of the party. If it's 100% membership lead then what's to stop the membership being made up entirely of far-right people and creating right wing policies? She's one of the founding members so her opinions carry weight.
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.
What's to stop the members from choosing policy that go against Corbyn's and Zarah's vision? That's what I find confusing. The members might make up a load of right wing policies, then what? Who's going to step in and go "actually, that's not what we envisioned, you can't do that."?
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.