Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Is Corbyn angling to be the man who got Farage to number 10?

[Tamas]

Is Corbyn angling to be the man who got Farage to number 10?

Johnson then Farage, nice double achievement it will be.

[Josquius]

I mean Corbyn has always been a tankie nut. He's been in Parliament since 1983 (as a hard-core Bennite) and I don't think in all that time there's any issue where he's changed his mind - he is absolutely who he is and has always been

Ukraine

[Sheilbh]

What's the opinion change there?

[Gups]

What's the opinion change there?

Right. He's always been pro-Soviet/Russia.

Surprised you are thinking of joining up.

[Josquius]

What's the opinion change there?

He's previously been on record saying the west should have been tougher on Russia.

Since the invasion he has been saying the west shoukd stop arming Ukraine.

It's less a change of view I find dissgreeable here and more what he is being vocal about.

[Norgy]

If you didn't have that Westminster system of elections, Corbyn would've been a marginalised figure ages ago and in no position to capture power in the Labour Party. He'd be the leader of the sister party of Norway's "Peace and Justice" which is about as pro-Putin you can get outside of Hungary.

This right-wing/far left coming together is rather proving the horseshoe theory of politics in some sense, although being "anti-establishment" is getting old.

[Josquius]

At least with Corbyn and other far left nuts they actually are anti establishment.
Well. The British establishment anyway.
The far right in their reform sort of form, despite making the same noises are the most establishment you can get.

[Norgy]

Having lived through the 80s and 90s and the early 2000s as a leftie, I am fairly comfy being establishment-supporting middle of the road rather than "behead them fuckers" these days.

Because you never know what you're going to get.

[Sheilbh]

Is Corbyn angling to be the man who got Farage to number 10?

Before this party launched Reform were polling at over 30% and Labour at around or under 20%. I'm not sure it can really be pinned on Corbyn or a party of the radical left emerging.

I think above all it's at Starmer's door - both politically from a Labour perspective but also as PM in terms of his actual agenda.

At the one year anniversary of Labour winning. I've been reminded of when Labour were in opposition and they recruited Sue Gray, the briefing was that she would be there to make sure they were ready for power and kick all the tires etc. There were stories within weeks of her being horrified at how unready they were and how little detailed preparation had taken place across all the briefs.

He's previously been on record saying the west should have been tougher on Russia.

Since the invasion he has been saying the west shoukd stop arming Ukraine.

It's less a change of view I find dissgreeable here and more what he is being vocal about.

I'd be intrigued on his language about the West being tougher on Russia. Because I don't think Corbyn has ever believed in "the West" as a positive force - I think his view of it would be that it's a hegemonic expression of American empire - or that he's wanted it to do anything.

I suspect it's less a change of views than the way he often positions things where "of course" he condemns x regime, but doesn't support concrete action against them.

But not arming or really backing Ukraine is, I think, consistent with everything Corbyn's said and done in the past.

[garbon]

Who said it is all pinned on Corbyn? My thinking is Corbyn can't really win so each Labour vote he takes makes it that much easier for Reform.

[Sheilbh]

If you didn't have that Westminster system of elections, Corbyn would've been a marginalised figure ages ago and in no position to capture power in the Labour Party. He'd be the leader of the sister party of Norway's "Peace and Justice" which is about as pro-Putin you can get outside of Hungary.

Maybe - I think it slightly depends when the voting system changes in the counter-factual Corbyn's been an MP for over 40 years but even before that he was the campaign manager for Tony Benn's very divisive deputy leadership challenge in 1981. He is part of a recognisable, hard left, Bennite Labour tradition (I think he's now been creating his own) and I think that's partly why it's taken him a while to start a new party. He was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 but I think Corbyn is happy being a rebellious backbench MP but sees himself as part of a distinctive Labour tradition - not from outside that movement.

In terms of marginalisation, I don't really think so. I think the voting system changes how the pathologies in European politics present in the UK - but I don't think it changes them. The same period that Corbyn became leader of Labour was the period when Melenchon broke through as the main candidate of the left in France, when Syriza were in power in Greece and, across Europe, the mainstream left parties were being PASOKified. I think Labour, perhaps more than any other party in Europe, was vulnerable to that because the party's activist/campaigning based had ossified (as we've seen repeatedly in Scotland and the Red Wall) and would also have been the governing party when the crash happened.

So Corbyn may have been marginalised within Labour as the way of capturing power but I think there's a strong chance that wing of the left could've overtaken Labour in the 2010s anyway.

Who said it is all pinned on Corbyn? My thinking is Corbyn can't really win so each Labour vote he takes makes it that much easier for Reform.

I'm not so sure. We are four years out. At the point the election was called Labour and the Tories were polling at 75% of the vote. By the time of the election they were on 55%. At the minute they're polling at 40%. Things are very volatile and I think it's difficult to work out now what 2029 might look like. This is particularly the cas for Labour who are in office with a huge majority and may, at some point, discover that means they're in power and can do things.

I'd add that I think strategically it'd be a huge mistake for any of these parties to be worrying about how they position themselves electorally against each other in 2029, because I think there's just too much time and possibility for change to do that meaningfully. Instead they should building up their party organisation and argument.

So on Reform specifically, I agree with Tim Montgomerie who has defected to them that I think it's possible that Reform win the next election but it's also possible that Reform do not exist as a party at the next election. They have an awful lot to do.

FWIW my best guess given all of that is that we're heading in a French direction. I think there'll be a lot of tactical voting to block Reform in areas where they could win, like with the RN in the French legislatives. I also think we may end up with a coupon election of coalitions like a Corbynista-Green popular front on the left and a Lib-Lab coalition in the centre against Reform. I thought it was interesting seeing Melenchon (who just did a sell out event in London) coming out because I think that's the "left" project in Europe this most resembles. He was saying that "in 48 hours, an England unbowed has emerged to the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. In 48 hours, 400,000 people have given their support. The first condition of success is met: a break with Labour, their lies, their neoliberalism and the rotton affiliation with Tony Blair, and moving forward autonomously and independently. Bravo Jeremy and Zarah! Bravo the free English!"

I think they're now up to 450,000. I'm struck with those numbers and also Reform setting up student societies in universities, doing regional party conferences and rallies and getting membership (which is  a bit different than the indication of support "Your Party" is at) up to about 250,000. Labour are on about 300,000 (and falling) but it feels like these new parties may, by the end of the year, each have more members than the biggest traditional party and, together, more than all the other parties combined. This is where I think we need more politics and more politicisation because there's clearly a demand for it - people want in.

[garbon]

Yeah, we've seen people really want Corbyn...

[garbon]

Also is that actually joined the party or joined a mailing list?

[Sheilbh]

Also is that actually joined the party or joined a mailing list?

Yeah that's the difference I'd draw between them and Reform.

Reform have been setting up ordinary membership/party structures for the last year or two which I think is quite significant. And there is a possibility that they've become the biggest party (Labour have stopped disclosing membership numbers).

The "Your Party" is currently an indicate support - and donate if you want - page. As you say a mailing list and invitation to the hybrid digital conference. At some point they will need to transition that into a membership organisation which will be a challenge. Again I think France is an interesting example as this is how both Macron's and Melenchon's parties started.

I don't think the public want Corbyn - I don't really think they want Farage either. But I do think they want change and a significant proportion want in. There's something there that even the traditional parties to learn, urgently.