Pay to make policy? Hmm.

Totally, and the point I was glibly implying was that the Greens are much more likely to take votes from the Lib Dems and Labour, than they are the Tories or Reform. As such, the circumstances for a Reform+Con minority looking for further coalition partners are where the Lab/Dem/Green vote has split and caused Ref/Con to get more seats than they actually should have.

I’m hoping that when 2029 rocks up we see a repeat of 2025, where the tactical votes play out correctly and we get some combination of Lab gov and Lib/Green opposition. I’m so sick and tired of right wing opposition to centrism (at best).

So he’ll stand down all candidates where a vote split is probable?

I completely agree with not wanting the UK to be China.

But I do see these as separate things - the same issues you describe could be done with driving licences, if someone was mad enough to try.

I honestly don’t get the resistance to a standard ID card.

We already have passports, driving licences, and national insurance as work arounds to prove identity, so in and of itself I don’t get why a proper one is a problem.

I’ve literally had to carry a driving licence for over two decades just to get a beer.

How dare you criticise dear leader!

Clear cut incitement of violence, time to ban his companies outright.

I wonder if the canary realise that they are making the same argument here as was made to not give women the vote. Namely, that a married couple will have the same views.

Granted, I do struggle to see how anyone could be married to a lobbist - let alone for arms - but association is not proof of a view.

Is there a risk? Sure, and it needs to be recorded as a potential conflict of interests and managed correctly - and, again, given all the other dumb shit that has happened this week I am sceptical that that has happened - but the assertion being made here is not a good look, at best, and arguably misogynistic at worst.

So, she’s in favour?

There are many, many, things you can criticise Labour under Starmer for, but “neo-Thatcherite” is laughable, and is about the level of political insight I’d expect from the canary.

Last I checked, Maggie didn’t nationalise rail companies, or increase workers rights, or a mass house building programme, or make targeted investment in the north, or have an industrial policy, or put billions in to renewables. In fact, come to think of it, she did the exact opposite of every one of these things.

Am I happy with Labour right now? No. But not everything short of fully seizing the means of production is Thatcherite, and to pretend it is gives the dead bitch far too much credit, and minimises the level of damage she and her ilk did to the country.

Edit - typos etc.

Well at least this is about as accurate as his other predictions.

If I was a smart man I’d be able to construct a discharge joke, but I’m finding it rather hard.

Please re-read my comments, you’ll see what I’ve written is not what you’re claiming it is.

I’m always happy to talk about routes of how we get to a better place, but if you’re just wanting to argue then I’ll pass.

So an independent investigation into our current involvement in Gaza isn’t currently achievable for what reason? What part of a better world are we missing, where a supposedly democratic nation, can’t carry out an independent check on it’s public offices?

I am continuing to talk about Labour’s manifestos, their electoral results in 2017, 2019, and 2024, and how it’s a frustrating reality that a) you can’t change anything if you aren’t in power, and b) getting in to power requires adjusting the offering based on what is currently possible.

Pot. Kettle.

I know you know this, but actually doing something that has an impact is not virtue signalling. We fed over 8k people last year, and that’s much more helpful to the working class than failing to get elected.

If purity is the reason you do nothing, instead of something, then you’re part of the problem.

There will always be tension between where ideology, and hopes of a better world, meet with what is currently achievable.

What is achievable depends on load of factors; what technology exists, how wealth is concentrated, how divided people are, etc etc.

It’s the 1500+ days between elections that we must work to shift these factors closer towards where we want to be, so people support policies rather than reject them.

I’d love to be in a situation where overnight everyone realised it’s the ultra rich that are the problem, and band together to peacefully redistribute based on nerd. But that isn’t where we are.

I refuse to have the blood of innocent children on my hands

This is just pure virtue signaling. The idea that by purposefully throwing away your vote is somehow morally better than voting once every 5 years for the lesser of two evils is asinine in the extreme.

that it caused people such as yourself to act against your own interests.

Continuing to vote for someone who lost two elections - regardless of how “fair” the other side fought is much more against my interests.

Tell me, do you still think ousting Corbyn was the right move?

I think any leader losing two elections is grounds of them to step down.

Were there unsubstantiated claims? Yes, absolutely.

But the report was not about those, it was about the ones that were proven to have happened. Replying to that report by bringing up unproven cases is very #notallmen energy.

Are we in a better position now under Kiers labour?

Better than under the Tories? Absolutely. I’m a trustee of a local foodbank, since July this is our first 12 month period ever where usage has reduced. That is directly related to increases in UC, the minimum wage, and DWP being moved to be helping people access benefits instead of finding any excuse to sanction them.

Is it better than what Corbyn campaigned on in 2017 or 2019? No, it’s not.

But actual improvements are better for those people who would otherwise be literally starving, compared to hypothetical alt futures.

but instead he was smeared and the party showed its true colours by jumping at the opportunity to oust him

Now then, I voted for Corbyn for leader twice. But his statement after the report in to antisemitism came out was of his own doing. He was asked to remove a single sentence - about it being overblown by fake reports, even though was exclusively regarding substantiated instances - and refused to.

We really need to stop with this faux persecution narrative. Policywise he was great, but at literally everything else he failed, and often by his own actions.

It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens here, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, registering for a mailing list isn’t joining a party.

Cowards.

Edit: oh and a reminder that, while it’s not perfect, the Coop Bank does still exist.

That literally isn’t what this protects though.