Why can’t the left stick together?

I can't read that, but the splitting of the right is doing the same and it
might cost them everything. Farage has got rid of some good people and they
will take voters with them.

Agreeing with everything within political parties is foolish, you have to question things, probably fellow forum members would consider myself left wing, but there are certain things that are considered left wing I believe are ludicrous and others good idea but not viable and can’t be achieved, short term anyway.

As Wagenknecht said, too many are lifestyle lefties. Virtue-signallers about vote-losing issues such as defending blokes pretending to be women.

At last election they came together quite well, to
max out seats to votes.

Tories traditionally far better at maxing seats

left right labels are very misleading. There is no rational reason why someone who is a fiscal Conservative should not be opposed to the death penalty, to pointless wars or to damaging the environment. Sums me up perfectly. My view can be summed up by the bizarre decision to put a Billion pounds into a new theme park to subsidise an American company. No doubt they shopped around to find out which country would offer them the biggest bribe and we won. I would not vote for £1 of my taxes to be spent on subsidising leisure activities of any kind. Nor would I pay taxes to encourage people to have more children in an overcrowded country that can not feed itself without ever more imports. All of the main parties want more economic growth which is effectively self defeating. Like putting fertiliser on  a field of weeds.

We are so far down the hole now, nobody would get elected offering the prescription the country needs, off the bat. That was a deliberate manoeuvre by new labour.

I do feel there needs to be an incentive to return to traditional family, and children being born domestically. The decline in birth rate is chronic. But that must be concurrent with a total cessation of importing new people.   

There are definitely small c conservative ways to achieve it.

Absolutely economic growth is needed, but not via state spending, money printing or increasing the population via importing more people.

Anyway, as I've outlined consistently for a long time, the left / right divide in politics is obsolete.

The Henry Novak attempted cover up exposes the real dividing line. There are plenty of what I would call old school labour that are as appalled about it as I am. But you can see the whole thing is very uncomfortable for the Tory party, including their leader. As they would be aligned with the labour party government in finding it a lot easier to try to brush it under the carpet, than admit to creating a two tier establishment.

but growth measured how cider? If it is measured in GDP per head is it going up or down? Having a bigger economy because we have a million more people each year achieves absolutely nothing but misery for the vast majority. Less people would mean less demand for houses therefiore cheaper real prices and less homelessness. Less cars and trucks on the roads so less road building and less potholes, less pressure on schools and the NHS, less need to pollute the seas and rivers with industrial and domestic waste. Less light pollution from ever expanding cities. I could go on for another page before I came to a single benefit of growth. Which would you prefer? Higher wages to keep pace with inflation or the same salary but cheaper prices?

Only per capita counts, but overall GDP is the primary metric used to judge countries. It is a flawed metric, not least as it is valued in usd. But definitely significant as if overall GDP falls for two quarters in a row then we are considered to be in technical recession.

Long term you simply cannot have a birth rate of 1.39 and no immigration. There wouldn't be enough people of working age to keep the country running.

Of course these variables go way beyond a single parliament. You're talking two decades to change the direction of the tankers in a meaningful way.

At school question was what did your dad do.

Very few working mums,.. Dad earned plenty.

Now both work and having kids is a sacrifice of
things you want to do.

Young adults making their own choices,.. Birth rate falls.

And why is a technical recession a "bad thing"? Because the markets will lend the country less money to spend on benefits of course. It is not necessarily a bad thing for ordinary people who have never had a benefit of any kind until they retire.

To individuals GDP is irrelevant, but there's no way the state would be comfortable being in recession. And yes it does impact the markets we have made ourselves so reliant on.

There's dozens of factors in the birth rate. But as I indicated, we've wilfully abandoned the traditional family, and actively encourage women to go to university and have careers, rather than having a family. This was of course also engineered by new labour.

And I do get the counter argument that women might not want to be mums and would rather have a career instead. On a one on one basis it is logical. In the round, if women don't have babies then that will precipitate the end of human civilisation.

we've wilfully abandoned the traditional family, and actively encourage women to go to university and have careers, rather than having a family. This was of course also engineered by new labour.


Add misogyny to racism and being totally bonkers

Corby may well have succeeded had he not been
portrayed in such bad light by MSM, a real sliding
doors moment in UK.

Corbyn

F  I  L  T  H

Jun 7, 2026 -- 8:13PM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

Corby may well have succeeded had he not beenportrayed in such bad light by MSM, a real slidingdoors moment in UK.

Yeah, but Labour leaders are always portrayed in a bad light. It's a lopsided board. Polanski had targeted attacks before the May election and Starmer's only getting a bit of respite now because he has one foot out the door. It all comes with the territory and you have to have the skills to challenge back and be strong enough to withstand. Corbyn was never strong enough to fight the anti-semitism stuff because he felt too much loyalty with his old comrades and those in his base who would cross the line, instead of standing up and drawing a line between himself and them. FWIW, I think the smart move from Burnham or Starmer or whoevs would be to invite Corbyn back in. Just ask him not to be too much of a pr!ck but accept he'll vote against party lines often. But just be an advert for being a broad church that can meet the demands of bad tory biffs like Streeting and lefty puritans like Corbyn.

It's not off though.


Leading the polls is nothing really. It's only a sign that it's potentially on. Hence, the uniparty infiltation starts at that point.

Are you claiming they won the local elections due to adding ex Tories to the team?

I hope not, as that would be incorrect analysis.

In my view anyway, one that I outlined at the time is that Farage was taking the long term view and realised he really needs an OM. And to get an OM, the country needs to see them as a safe option. People who have been at the top of government already will help with that, if you are a brand new party. Farage cannot do every media interview, and he needed more capable people in and around parliament. It is/was a risk, but I get it.

Lol corrupt tories to mitigate the loonies

cider, you're essentially just repeating my post back to me.

reform are looking to peel voters away from the tories. By taking a few high profile mp's they suddenly make themselves approachable to those who saw Farage as a step too far. "well if it's good enough for Jenrick, it's good enough for me" etc.


So yeah, local elections will be in part down to going more centrist tory.

Well, no. Depends on your definition of 'successful' in politics. Farage was successful in politics long before he took any ex Tory ministers. My view is that he wants to properly course correct the country, and the only way that is possible is via an OM. Way beyond being successful in politics. Winning national elections with parties you have created yourself is being successful in politics, in my opinion. I don't know anyone else that has achieved that, do you?

You know what I mean by successful.

I don't know anyone else that has achieved that, do you?



Macron

In the UK, obviously.

Alex Salmond the closest in my lifetime, whilst he didn't start the snp, he took it from a fringe party to the dominant political force in Scotland.

Ramsay McDonald and Keir Hardie were fundamental in forming the Labour party too.

All very well with Spencer, she would not concede the real reason for the shortage of affordable housing in a million years. In fact, her party supports open borders.

It's too early to view her declared expenses, let's see if she practices as she preaches, or is another hypocrite off the rank. I know which one my money is on.

Sage's post disappears lol