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.
The right has always been open with grovelling to the wealthy. From their very formation post fudalism.
Normally the wealthy are a bit better at keeping things under wraps then Musky Elon running US government departments openly breaking laws. Speaking at far right rallies attended by racists.
He seems to be the billionaire least able to STFU to keep his goals secret.
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.
Sorry to grin at you. But in OS theory Linux is known as a monolith kernal. So you choice of words would have given my lecturers a freakout.
But while your terminology is a bit crossed. The ideal you are explaining is fine.
Better Technical way to put it. Linux is just the kernal. Much of the interface you see is actually programs or apps running above that kernal. A d can be changed amd selected.
Windows is also started multipart. But has become less so over time. And it's single distributer makes it way less obvious. By preventing any competition within it's internal structure. The original monolithic kernal of Windows was the MS Dos command.com program. But I no lying those of us from the 80s and early 90 remember using it.