frankPodmore

They really should just formalise Momentum as a party, tell the Momentum-affiliated Labour MPs to jump or be pushed, and use Momentum as the name. Already has recognition, for one thing.

I’m convinced it’s a pride thing, the Greens stood against them in the 2017/19 and they’re holding onto that grudge.

This will be an unpopular comment here, but narcissism really is Corbyn's dominant personality trait, so you may well be right.

But even so, there is an old school Marxist way of looking at political parties, which is that any member-funded party is de facto materially a bourgeois party regardless of what its policy platform is. I think a lot of people on the left share that view, which has always limited the appeal of the Greens to Labour's left flank. I think that if Corbyn had his own way, he'd set up a party along the lines of Labour's original organising principle, in which there was no individual membership; you could only join if you were a member of an affiliated union or a socialist society (like the Fabians, which basically became a way for middle class people to join the Labour party!).

Again, though, this is a case where both explanations - pride/narcissism AND genuinely held philosophical views - can be true!

'Your Party’ better be an interim name, because it’s crap.

Corbyn says it's an interim name and Sultana says it's not the name. Both can be true! I have a feeling the Electoral Commission wouldn't allow that name, anyway, but I'm not sure.

This is literally the Green party.

That's what Caroline Lucas said, too! I'm inclined to agree unless they get some unions on board. I suspect that's why they haven't joined the Greens, already.

EDIT: Added link to Lucas' comment, the relevant part being 'I’ve not yet seen any policy they’re proposing that isn’t already a longstanding part of the Green Party manifesto'.

I often wonder about this with regard to right wing Americans believing such ridiculous things. It's seem that what Trump supporters ultimately have in common is not one set of beliefs but a shared belief in things that make no sense: that all Democrats are paedophiles, that JFK wasn't really assassinated, that vaccines don't work, that climate change isn't real, that Donald Trump is anything but a foolish, evil corrupt man. What do these views have in common? They're fundamentally foolish things to believe.

The fact is that once you believe one patently absurd thing - for example, that an interventionist god exists - your thinking gets warped. When you then make this absurdity the centre of your worldview and your identity, your views on everything become warped. After a certain point, they seem to start believing things because they make no sense.

If a person believes God actually answers prayers, something there is no reason whatsoever to believe, they're primed to believe all kinds of other nonsense. This is exactly why many religious people have stopped believing in that kind of thing, and now take refuge in the idea of prayer as comfort or as asking for 'strength' rather than asking for anything specific (note that even this compromise requires them to ignore the plain meaning of the words of, e.g., the Lord's Prayer). Most people find it uncomfortable to believe in nonsense. For others, it becomes the point.

The blog post does address that point!

I agree, there's some room for manoeuvre, but there are no options with no downsides. Chaminda Jayanetti had a good thread of (left-leaning) suggestions over on BlueSky. And he agrees with you about the triple lock, too.

They could draw level with Labour, sure. But hypothetical polls like this are pretty much worthless in terms of predictive value.

What this does show is that lots of people, especially young, left wing people, are angry at the government and want them to change direction.

Late reply to my own post, but I think an underappreciated point here is that people recognise things are really bad, but don't recognise that that means there's little room for manoeuvre.

Again, I find myself having to explain sentences to you. He has nothing to say 'in this context, about this thing, which is the subject of our discussion' is not the kind of clarification I should have to append to my every utterance, I feel.

The whole premise of our discussion is whether or not he is planning to co-lead a party with other politicians who oppose the Israel lobby! So, no! Manifestly not!

Cheers. Obviously there's a case to be made that some people really are globalists (as in, they believe in globalisation) but there are... connotations.

With my mod hat on: Can we be careful with conspiracy-adjacent language like globalists, please.

It depends how much it ends up involving the pro-Palestine independent MPs, I think.