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.
Again, the case is the exact opposite of the one you're making. 'When he starts assembling a new party he knows the news will leak' - so why did he not have a clear statement ready? Because he has nothing to say. He's 'playing open card' but he's incapable of even saying who is putting the party together, or confirming if he's in some sort of leadeship role. Why? Because he has nothing to say.
Frankly, I think Sultana knows that waiting for Corbyn to commit to anything will take forever. She was probably trying to bounce him into taking an actual position and, as most people have found, he just doesn't want to. Good for her for trying something big but, for her sake, I hope this shows her it's time to move on from the guy.
You have got to stop putting this dim, narcissistic man on a pedestal and taking your fanfic about him as reality. The reason he has said nothing concrete is that he has nothing to say.
Again, I'm struggling here, because as in our previous discussions, you don't seem to be replying to the words I've written. I said: 'Corbyn is not co-leader', and you reply, 'Where does it say [Sultana] is not co-leader?'
As often with supporters of Corbyn, I find your willingness to read whatever you want into his sayings a source of frustration. If he is co-leading this new foundation, or party, or whatever it is, why did he not just say so? Why use the passive voice? I suspect the reason he writes these convoluted non-statements - who is 'us'? What is a 'new kind' of party? Who is shaping it? Amongst whom are discussions ongoing? - is precisely to avoid anyone pinning him down to anything concrete.
Yeah, they did what a lot of the LTNs did elsewhere, which was to rebrand but keep the policies the same. Our car culture remains ridiculous but we're moving against it every day!
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.