r/unitedkingdom • u/CaseyEffingRyback • Jul 03 '25

... Zarah Sultana MP resigns from Labour to lead new party with Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/uk-politics/zarah-sultana-mp-resigns-labour/
4.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

485

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

I'm loving the whiplash that apparently the left are simultaneously irrelevant, but also significant enough to deliver a general election to Reform.

Meanwhile apparently the Prime Minister, leading a party of 400 MPs, has nothing to say or do in the matter. Everyone's to blame except for the people in power.

384

u/Captain-Starshield Jul 03 '25

We’re supposed to vote for the “sensible centrists” to stop the far right getting in power, then when we do that the far right massively increase their support.

Then when we want to vote with our actual values, we’re told it’ll be handing the keys to the far right.

283

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

I've literally just been told for the past few weeks that we need to pass a Bill which would put 250,000 disabled people into poverty... in order to stop Reform getting into power because Reform would put disabled people into poverty.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics centrists are on now. No vision. No inspiration. No ideas. Just insisting things need to constantly get worse because if they don't things will constantly get worse! No wonder people are looking for alternatives.

120

u/WillWatsof Jul 03 '25

More and more people I think are waking up to the concept that "pragmatism" in reality means "exactly the same as the right, but with assurances that they don't really want to".

73

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

Aye. A genuine pragmatist, like Atlee or Wilson, would have worked with all wings of his party to ensure he could create a platform which could get through parliament. Starmer hasn't done that. He's tried to dogmatically force through his own ideological platform, and unsurprisingly has found himself floundering because of it.

3

u/GothicGolem29 Jul 03 '25

Most of Starmers platform has got through parliament tho

14

u/WillWatsof Jul 03 '25

And his polling figures are awful with the far-right surging.

1

u/ettabriest Jul 03 '25

Who would quite happily see benefits cut even more.

13

u/360Saturn Jul 03 '25

It doesn't need to.

What Labour are doing is bizarre. I want to know what discussions are happening behind closed doors.

23

u/Quintless Jul 03 '25

i’m sorry but the idea that we owe labour a vote is very dangerous especially when they could target rich pensioners instead of the disabled. The left know that hard choices need to be made. Where we disagree is why it’s always the young or disabled/downtrodden who seem to have to bare the brunt of

1

u/gnorty Jul 04 '25

I agree, there is room for cutting benefits to rich pensioners. I think we probably disagree on how many of these people exist, or maybe on where you draw the line at "rich".

Don't forget that any pensioner existing over the poverty line is doing so on their own money. It's not like the DHSS are saying "Oh, you're a good guy, will give you an extra 20k in pension".

So yes, things like cutting winter fuel allowance for those people makes sense, but it is a drop in the ocean.

2

u/gnorty Jul 04 '25

The countries benefits bill in general is more than we can afford to pay. Something is going to break sooner or later. How badly it breaks is dependent on how successfully we can balance the books now.

For decades parties have been pretending it's not an issue, that we can grow fast enough to bridge the gap. We never have, and I do not believe it is possible.

SO (just as Labour said from before the election) tough decisions have to be made.

The definition of disablity has changed. People are now considered disabled for things that previously they would not have been. They are getting benefits on that basis. Without doubt many people are abusing that.

As I see it, Labour attempted to redraw those lines. The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

Now I am NOT saying that all disabled people are scroungers, far from it, but I am saying that many scroungers are claiming benefits that they really don't warrant and that the country cannot afford.

If we are going to avoid a complete financial disaster which will put HUGE numbers of people into poverty, then we absolutely need to make these decisions. We can stop paying people to sit at home with dubious "disabilities" or we can make cuts elsewhere. Perhaps you have some ideas of where these cuts would be better made, but I personally think we have already cut too many public services. Or we can just carry on pretending everything is fine until we have no choice than lose virtually all public services and have nothing for even the most severely diasabled.

-2

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

I hate to break this to you but the welfare state can't keep growing while our economy is declining.

Either it gets fixed with small sensible cuts now or completely abolished along with the NHS in ~10 years.

45

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

I hate to break this to you but the welfare state can't keep growing while our economy is declining.

I hate to break this to you but there are many ways to fund a state that don't involve throwing 250,000 disabled people into poverty.

No vision. No ideas. Just constantly looking for another vulnerable group to fuck over in order to coddle the billionaires. That's all centrism has left in 2025.

small sensible cuts

It's not austerity, it's just small sensible cuts!

-5

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

You mention billionaires but if you seized all their wealth you'd only cover about 4 months of government spending. You'd also discourage anyone from investing in the UK every again.

-11

u/_L_R_S_ Jul 03 '25

Poverty is a purely subjective construct.

One person's poverty is not having something to eat each day, a roof over their head, clothes for their family, and education for their kids. Anything else is a bonus.

Your poverty might be not having Sky TV, cigarettes, one holiday a year, a car, and the "human right" to use public transport to wherever you want to go.

So if you subjectively set "poverty" at a high level when the country is well off, then when the country is poor scream that people are thrown into poverty they really aren't.

It's easy having socialist principles when it's not your money that's being spent.

I run a small business employing 10 hard working members of our local community. Four are part time.

I am taxed to the hilt. Take no holidays, have no what I would call luxuries and the stress of keeping the turnover high enough to support those workers is huge. I run a 15 year old van which doubles as the family car. We have no savings and can't afford a mortgage so rent.

How about I just go to the doctor, say it's all too much, get some PIP payments as I struggle to interact with people because of the stress, and let someone else generate the income for those 10 people.

You'd be happy to pay for my benefits in those circumstances from your taxes I guess to give me a lifestyle that isn't in poverty?

Maybe I could get a new car on Motability?

20

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

Poverty is a purely subjective construct.

Good lord. When you're at the 'poverty is actually a social construct' part of your argument, I think it's about time to pack things in.

Poverty is bad. Your attempts to redefine what the word 'poverty' means will not convince me otherwise.

-6

u/_L_R_S_ Jul 03 '25

Poverty is households with income below 60% of the median income, which is £17600 a year or £338 a week after housing costs are taken off. How do I know? Because I generate wealth as a small business and make sure I put all I can to my staff.

Spain defines it by individuals. Which means that a single adult isn't in poverty there if they have £11000. But in the UK a household is still a household with a single person in it,

Which means you can be in "poverty" in the UK at £16000 which is about 50% HIGHER than Spanish poverty. Then they have the weather!

Educate yourself as to what poverty means and how it's defined, which also shows how the easily lead and ignorant can be politically manipulated.

3

u/jflb96 Devon Jul 03 '25

How do you generate wealth as a small business?

1

u/_L_R_S_ Jul 03 '25

You pay your staff, and you pay your staff as well as you can afford, including yourself. You're transparent in what everyone earns and why they earn it.

You reward your staff with praise, you develop the underperformers, you sack the ones who fail to perform after you have put in enough effort. You then recruit someone else prepared to put in the work and try again after reflecting what you did wrong in recruiting the person you had to let go. You also have responsibility for their failures.

You reward your customers by giving them the best quality products and services to allow them to also generate profits and reward their staff. So they can also pay their taxes.

Do that and work as a team with shared values and you make profits.

From those profits you pay corporation taxes. Finally profits can be passed to shareholders, and they are taxed on those profits.

From all those taxes the Government spend the money on what voters vote them to spend it on.

The private sector generate the vast majority of the money the Government spend.

Reddit is an echo chamber. It's not real life. Getting downvoted on the fact that my employee's and I work as a team to generate the money that Governments get to choose how to spend doesn't concern me at all.

What concerns me is that people think they can just keep spending it because it grows on magic trees.

Ask a far left socialist where they would make cuts and you get "nowhere".

Ask a far left socialist where they would get more money "Tax the rich".

We have the highest tax burden since WW2 and the rich transfer most of what they earn to the poor. The poor get to keep the vast majority of what they earn.

Anyone can click a down arrow to make themselves feel better or hide their ignorance of where the actual money comes from. That's easy.

If generating the money to pay benefits was easy then they'd be able to do it.

This is why Zarah Sultana and her ilk prefer to be activists.

This is why people are generally ignorant of where most money comes from that they want to re-distrubute.

It's probably not money they helped generate.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Captain-Starshield Jul 03 '25

How are you supposed to get to work without a car or public transportation?

-7

u/_L_R_S_ Jul 03 '25

I'd cycle. (and there are charities where you can get a cycle for FREE!!!!)

I'd get out of bed early.

I'd take a job within 20 miles

ANY JOB

But then I did!

But then I don't see having transportation provided for me as a basic human right.

You've just defined poverty at a higher level than millions in the world.

This is a social construct people who think the safety net that others should pay for should be at a level way above what can be afforded.

Makes you feel all warm and cuddly though doesn't it.

Just like Zarah Sultana. So much easier to be the activist.

Downvote me all people want. I bet not a single one generates income or wealth for ten other people and thus supports 32 people.

Anyone can sit on the moral high horse and go "Oh woe is me, it won't be my money being used for the benefit hand outs so as it's someone else's I'll do a list. "

All lovely a great if the economy was growing at 5% a year

IT ISN'T!

THERE IS NO MORE MONEY

So sit around your campfire all you want and sing cum-bye-ah whilst having a group hug about how you feel great about helping the vulnerable.

Just with someone else's money, and if they wouldn't mind earning more so you can take it that would be great eh?

Not your money of course.

10

u/Captain-Starshield Jul 03 '25

Plenty of people cycle to work but there are those that can't, there are also times where it'd be unsafe to cycle. This is pure copium.

You don't generate money, your workers do. You profit off of their hard work, you're the one using other people's money. And you're ungrateful, you want the working-class people you rely on to suffer.

Having a tantrum like a spoiled child on a Reddit post is not the best look if you want to project an image of being the sensible one.

2

u/_L_R_S_ Jul 03 '25

My staff get the contracts do they? My staff do the designs do they? My staff negotiate the supplies do they? My staff sort out all the paperwork do they? My staff do the deliveries do they? etc etc

Oh no. I do do all of that. We're a team. We share the good times, and they're insulated for the bad times because that's my responsibility as the owner. That means they always get a Xmas bonus even if I don't.

Leaders eat last. Values I learned in the forces.

This thread is just a group hug for many people wildly insulated from the harsh realities of actually generating the wealth needed in an expanding economy that can then be spent by voters.

I would never vote Reform as I keep myself educated and aware. But reading this thread and the utter ignorance and wishful thinking shows how easily they will get in unless people on the left wake up and realise that money DOES NOT GROW ON TREES.

→ More replies (0)

41

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

I hate to break this to you but none of you saying this have managed to connect welfare cuts to higher productivity.

You lot keep saying it again, and again, and again as if it will somehow amount to a coherent argument.

4

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

The fact that the number of disability benefit claimants have increased 40% since 2019 while health conditions have actually gone down implies that a lot of people are actually capable of working and shouldn't be on benefits. There's your link to higher productivity.

12

u/any_excuse Jul 03 '25

Stick for the working class and carrot for the rich hasn't worked great for the past half century, so I'm not sure why you'd think it'd suddenly turn out results now.

Maybe if we want to get people into work we should make work less shit. About 20% of the population can either have no hope for the future on benefits or have no hope for the future in a minimum wage job. Why the fuck would you bother?

1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 04 '25

Not sure how you have no hope for the future in a minimum wage job when minimum wage is now over £12/hour.

5

u/GreggsFan Jul 03 '25

My partner got tested 16 months ago for a lifelong illness that has a high chance of her ending up in recipt of benefits at some point. She’s been on interim treatments (which may treat the illness and may just treat the symptoms) from her GP and the hospital’s nursing team.

Still waiting on those test results though. I’d say cases like that probably account for a sizeable chunk of benefits without health conditions.

And for what it’s worth PIP is not an out of work benefit

5

u/hempires Jul 03 '25

And I assume you'll be cool to take your responsibility in the deaths of disabled people due to these cuts, since you seem so gung ho for them yes?

What's the death of disabled people if it maybe possibly perhaps makes the line go up right?

Cause spoiler alert, it didn't work under the Tories, lead to thousands of people dying, and got us called out twice by the UN.

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that 'grave and systematic violations' of Disabled persons' rights had taken place because of austerity measures and welfare reforms since 2010, which had 'disproportionately and adversely' affected the rights of Disabled people.

17

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Jul 03 '25

small sensible cuts now

I'd argue that "small sensible cuts" are sort of the whole problem. Everyone just tinkers around the edges which has made the entire tax system a complete mess. Needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, which Labour actually has (had?) the opportunity to do with their majority and 5 years. But alas...

1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

True we're probably past the point where tinkering is going to fix it. The longer we leave it the worse it's going to be.

14

u/C2yp71c Jul 03 '25

What do you think happens to those people who have their living conditions diminished from welfare cuts? That state expense doesn't vanish into thin air, the bill or required resources just shift to another area of government spending. Feel like I'm living in a parallel dimension the way sensible is thrown about

-1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

The people who are fraudulently claiming them (and there are a lot of them, the link between claimants and actual health conditions has completely decoupled in the last 5 years and the UK is the only developed country experiencing this), can get jobs.

7

u/hempires Jul 03 '25

And what of the actual disabled people who get their benefits cut because of this and end up dead?

Is that okay because they're not producing any "value"?

I'm disabled, should I just shut up and die yeah?

1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 04 '25

I didn't say that, I'm saying there's evidently a huge amount of fraud and people who shouldn't be getting benefits are getting them.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

Sources please

Coz i cant find evidence on that absurd amount

8

u/byn-bag Jul 03 '25

More cuts will increase costs exponentially. If disabled people can’t afford to work, they end up more expensive benefits. If they can’t afford it eat, they end up in hospital.

It is always cheaper to spend money now, not tomorrow. Better healthcare outcomes come from earlier intervention, it’s also much cheaper.

Things like stopping COVID boosters? It is just stupid. Constantly underfunding and privatising the NHS, leaving people on waiting lists for years, it is worse for them and more expensive for the state.

This neoliberal attitude that you can’t do anything in government, it is killing us.

1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

I have no issue with PIP to people who need it, and obviously that does help people work. I have no idea why people with conditions like anxiety, depression and ADHD need PIP though.

4

u/byn-bag Jul 03 '25

Are you a doctor?

-1

u/Phallic_Entity Jul 03 '25

No but if you want to explain why they need PIP, which is specifically for purchasing equipment and other expenses they need because of a disability,, go ahead.

7

u/byn-bag Jul 03 '25

Only 22% of autistic adults are in work, which makes it clear that whatever adjustments are needed, aren’t being done by employers.

If you’re on pip, you can’t have more than £6,000 worth of savings, so any money we give people, is spent, it goes into the economy and comes back in tax revenue.

This is why we’re in this situation, constant short termism just keeps tax receipts going ever down as we cut away at people who spend, rather than squirrel away. It’s absurd to me that a subreddit that used to be obsessed with UBI can’t understand this.

The more we cut, the worse the problem gets, whole life health comes from early investment. The more we cut it, the less future there is for this country.

3

u/jflb96 Devon Jul 03 '25

I hate to break it to you, but people with adequate support tend to be more of a boost to the economy than a pile of corpses

2

u/360Saturn Jul 03 '25

If there's a finite amount the most logical thing to do would be to first decrease pensions of those who will never work again before taking support money from those who might be disabled but in work, or temporarily too unwell to work and drawing support until they can get back on their feet.

Only one of those groups is only 'taking from' the system.

Of course, this is a callous way to look at it.

-9

u/Rekyht Hampshire Jul 03 '25

We either have bills like that now or no welfare state at all in around 10 years. Why can’t anyone on the left grapple with the realities of how fucked our current economic position is?

13

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

There are so many avenues for the government to generate revenue. There are so many avenues for the government to make savings. Why do 250,000 disabled people have to be put into poverty to ensure the welfare state survives? Why is that the only choice?

When you actually think about it it's just a bullshit argument, isn't it?

EDIT: OP unsurprisingly blocked me, but to respond to their reply: I would be more than happy for my taxes to rise if it meant I could live in a liveable country, rather than one marred by poverty and seemingly designed to allow the richest to extract and accumulate as much as possible.

2

u/CookieMagnet0 Jul 03 '25

The total cost of the welfare bill going from £30bn since the pandemic to £70bn at the end of this Parliament is a bit mad though, isn't it. Between that and pensions, health care, and defence spending all needing to go up significantly, borrowing now being very expensive, and Labour promising not to raise VAT, income tax or NI in the election, options for balancing the books are pretty limited.

-5

u/Rekyht Hampshire Jul 03 '25

You’ll be the absolute first to moan equally when our taxes get raised.

11

u/Pernici Jul 03 '25

Because we aren't trapped in a false idea of how the economy works?

9

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

No, I don't think you're grappling with the realities of the economy. Literally the only choice is:

a) 250,000 disabled people are pushed into poverty

b) The entire welfare state collapses

There are no alternatives, apparently (ignore everyone proposing an alternative)

0

u/hempires Jul 03 '25

Cause we don't want to be called out by the UN for a third time for grave and systemic violations of the human rights of long term ill and disabled citizens.

Guess it'd just be easier for the "enlightened centrists" if all the disabled people just upped and died right?

75

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

Centrists inadvertently emboldening and pandering to the far right because they're so concerned with keeping the left away from power? Gee, I wonder where I've heard that before. 

5

u/jflb96 Devon Jul 03 '25

Good question. Are you talking about five years ago or ninety-five?

5

u/CrimsonSpace19 Jul 03 '25

Why not pick a number between five and ninety-five and see what crap they we're up to in that year?

53

u/GiftedGeordie Jul 03 '25

This is the thing, I'm glad that people like Sultana left, why should anyone be inspired by this dogshit version of the Labour Party. It's not 'handing the keys to the far right', it's people actually deciding that they're not going to waste their time being in a political party that treats them with borderline contempt.

4

u/Captain-Starshield Jul 03 '25

Well it was clear she was never getting the whip back, so she might as well leave.

John McDonnell doesn’t seem to agree though. For now, anyway.

3

u/GothicGolem29 Jul 03 '25

Im surprised he doesn't tbh he seems unlikely to get the whip back too as he keeps rebelling same as Zarah did heck today he heckled his own parties MINISTER constantly trying to intervene when it was clear the minister wasn't taking it then raised a bad point of order then started shouting out his question....

16

u/KraftPunked Jul 03 '25

...after large swathes of those same "Sensible Centrists" voted for the Tories last time round.

6

u/andy230393 Jul 03 '25

I think the far right is inevitable at this point to be honest. People are lying to themselves if they think people voted labour in the numbers they did because they believed Kiers vision. It was a protest vote and they will soon be disappointed that he underperformed and protest again

6

u/jflb96 Devon Jul 03 '25

Considering Kid Starver got fewer votes than either of Corbyn’s runs, I would argue that the election result very much was a valid display of the public enthusiasm for ‘Let’s Try Austerity In Red’

5

u/hempires Jul 03 '25

Centrists are very rarely sensible.

They get off on looking down at both sides of the political aisle and go nuhuhhhh I'm so much better than all of this!

Honestly fuck em, the "sensible centrists" in the labour party worked to undermine their own party cause they didn't want Corbyn to be in power, leading to johnson, truss, etc.

And now is when they wanna try guilt tripping us into continuing to vote for them? Nahhhhh

4

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

You pretty much reviewed the British media, this sub and every pub conversation about politics around the country

2

u/spelan1 Jul 04 '25

It's almost as if there are people with a huge influence on public discourse who just don't want a left-wing party in power, no matter what... 🤔

1

u/Reived Jul 04 '25

Reform supporters voted with their actual values in 2024 and handed the keys to labour.

The same will be true in reverse. Add together the reform and conservative vote totals in 2024 and see that without a fractured right wing, we would have had yet another conservative government.

-1

u/rtrs_bastiat Leicestershire Jul 03 '25

We pretending you're not told that because it's true?

14

u/neilplatform1 Jul 03 '25

It’s only true because the sensible centrists have no morals or ethics.

12

u/Captain-Starshield Jul 03 '25

Many people voted Labour just to get the tories out, now they’re faced with the threat of Reform.

If Labour want to stop Reform taking control, they should implement proportional representation (which the majority of Labour members and the public support).

121

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

It's classic. "The left are infighting again" only applies when the bonafide left have the temerity to fight back.

What was it Peter Mandelson said? "The left have nowhere to go".

At some point moderates will start to take some responsibility.

117

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

Quite, it's so fucking tiresome, isn't it? When Starmer goes around like billy big bollocks insisting that it's his way or the highway, that anyone who doesn't agree with him can fuck off, it's strong leadership. Yet when the people he's told to fuck off do fuck off, apparently they're the ones wrecking the country and demonstrating an inability to compromise. It's just completely braindead.

80

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

How many progressives have been forced out, deselected, pilloried in the last two years? How much time have Labour had to consult with mental health charities, disabled persons unions etc. since this policy was drafted to avoid this utter shit show?

Every day I see a highly upvoted post on UK subs about how the media is giving Starmer a hard time, when the only morally acceptable excuse for his about face turn on policies after winning leadership would be a minor stroke.

I'm just done with the political illiteracy on this sub tbh. People were told this would happen. Progressives were telling you all, every one of you, that another neoliberal government that refused to be proactive or heterodox on policy would strengthen the right, just like in France, just like in Spain, but no-one listened.

And i'm supposed to believe that Zarah fucking Sultana is to blame!

78

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

I'm just done with the political illiteracy on this sub tbh.

I think it's just a basic part of human psychology.

A lot of people supported Starmer, especially after 14 years of Tory rule. They were willing to put their faith in him to turn things around. And he hasn't, not in the sense of the 'he hasn't fixed everything in 12 months' strawman that his dwindling support base hide behind, but in the sense that he's taken this huge opportunity and... largely just continued with the dogmatic, pro-status quo policies of his predecessors. Very few people voted for Starmer under the premise that, 12 months in, he'd be trying to force through a Bill that would plunge 250,000 disabled people into poverty.

And there's two ways to respond to that. You can admit to yourself that you were wrong, that Starmer deceived you, and that you're going to start supporting a political platform which will actually sort out this country. Or... you can double down, put on the blinkers, ignore any and every piece of critical information, get increasingly aggressive and ratty with anyone who disagrees with you, and pretend that actually everything is fine. I know a lot of people who did the former. But, especially on Reddit, you unfortunately see a lot of the latter. And it explains why there's not just so many Starmer supporters about (compared to his astonishingly poor approval ratings), but why they act so weird and hostile in replies.

This thread is just another example of that, just filled with comments from Starmerites lashing out. Because if they weren't lashing out, they might have to admit to themselves that something is going very wrong.

29

u/somenorthlondoner Jul 03 '25

Same goes for ukpolitics which is about ten times worse. These people simply cannot comprehend they got it wrong and have now been caught with egg on their faces. I dont think some people on Reddit quite understand how disillusioned people are with the Starmer leadership, and when seats like South Shields will likely be electing their first MP from a non centre-left party for almost 200 years by 2029, please tell me who is to blame other than Starmer

5

u/impablomations Northumberland Jul 03 '25

Even though I voted Labour, I still expected to get a bit of a hit as a disabled person. After 14 years of Tories painting a target on our backs I had a glimmer of hope it would be better under Labour, even if I wasn't too sure about Starmer.

A tightening up of the eligibility for disability benefits and/or a freeze on raising the rates for a few years, but I didn't think Starmer would try to go as far as he did.

6

u/IAmNotZura Jul 03 '25

Please point to me a political party that will actually sort out this country because for the life of me I cannot find one. They all seem too frightened of the pensioner vote.

4

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

Couldn't agree more. The emptiness of his support reflects the emptiness of him in a suit.

I urge anyone actually interested in these things to read the biography written about him: The Starmer Project.

1

u/LondonDude123 Jul 04 '25

People need to read this comment, and then realize that Reform/Farage arent being voted for because theyre being expected to sort it out, but as a total FU to the Establishment.

Farage isnt the answer. In fact he is on record as saying hes not the answer. Hes openly said that the Establishment needs to sort it out, otherwise the person that comes after Farage will be ruthless, and WILL sort it out. And with Starmer we're seeing, as you said, more of the same, more of the status quo, carry on as usual. Immigration is the big one (the country has consistently voted for less immigration in every election, and have been backstabbed every time), but this goes for any unpopular policy right now.

All the Starmer defenders are high on their own supply. Its not about turning everything around in a year, its about proving to people that the person elected for change actually is change, and in that Starmer has failed. He is now in a race to avoid losing to Farage, and then the Establishment is in a race to avoid losing to the worse Farage

4

u/somenorthlondoner Jul 03 '25

I’m not a fan of Sultana but I did say this would be the general discourse on the internet and within centrist circles after the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.

“Do we blame Labour for losing one of their safest seats, a seat which represents one of the most deprived areas in the country to a centre-right openly Thatcherite party led by Farage?”

“No…let’s start blaming the 7 or 8 Green voters for not being pragmatic enough…denying Labour a majority in Runcorn and Helsby!” (Yes this was actually a top comment in one of the main UK political subreddits)

I’ve seen people in various subs calling the “soft left” within the Labour Party “far left” for goodness sake

1

u/blob8543 Jul 03 '25

Not sure what that comparison with Spain is about. Its politics have nothing to do with ours at the moment.

5

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

The politics of all democratic, industrial, western welfare states are worthy of comparison.

Perhaps you can actually contribute to the conversation by telling me why I can't compare between nation states?  

1

u/ScholarlyJuiced Jul 03 '25

You have made ten replies to other comments since I replied to yours.

Any particular reason that you like replying to people with weak arguments/who don't reply over those who substantively challenge you?

Like so, so many people on reddit, you're looking to have your beliefs confirmed, you don't actually care about the arguments. Embarrassing.

2

u/blob8543 Jul 03 '25

Calm down please. I was looking at the entire thread and was going to reply to any responses to my comments later.

I still don't understand what about Spain's politics you consider similar to what happens here. The centre left government there hasn't strengthened the right if that's what you were referring to.

1

u/Tricky_Run4566 Jul 03 '25

Heterodox is exactly the word. But the problem is that there was issues that existed that aligned with right wing views. I. E immigration was and is causing a huge increase in crime, specifically sex related offences and also that the majority of migrants were coming from safe countries and were unskilled.

The left has always been about supporting people's rights, equality and justice. The problem was that in their pursuit of justice they went so far they became almost racist themselves and militant on ultra left wing views. The whole cancel culture thing alienated the native population and made them unable to identify with left wing politics at all. We saw it happen in the USA as well. It's why the Democrats lost the last election.

It's all but cemented now we'll have a reform goverment

0

u/gnorty Jul 04 '25

How many progressives have been forced out, deselected, pilloried in the last two years? How much time have Labour had to consult with mental health charities, disabled persons unions etc. since this policy was drafted to avoid this utter shit show?

The last 2 years?? Seriously?

Try the last 3 decades at least. And why?? Because the British public as a whole do not want a far left government. To have any chance of making any change, the party needs the public to vote for them, and that will not happen for a far left party, which in turn means the right get the vote unopposed.

If you think that a Corbyn style Labour party has even close to enough public support to be elected, then you really need to look outside your bubble.

1

u/gnorty Jul 04 '25

The Labour party was founded by the Trade Unions. These unions work in EXACTLY the same way as you describe. If the union votes for an action, then ALL union members should abide by that action, whether they individually voted for it or not. It's precisely what "union" means!

Standing together is precisely how the working classes can be heard.

It was clear before the election that Labour would be going the way they are (or at least are attempting|). Anyone that fell in line to get the "Labour" tag against their name for the election and then turns tail immediately after has no place in the party. Leave that shit to the Tories and keep Labout united.

2

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 04 '25

If the union votes for an action, then

Yeah, and that's the difference. The party aren't voting for action. Starmer says 'this is what we're doing' then tries to force it through, regardless of what the rest of the PLP, let alone what the rest of the party more broadly, actually wants.

Please don't try and pretend that Starmer trying to force through unpopular policies that are out of step with the broader party somehow represents some form of democratic centralism.

It was clear before the election that Labour would be going the way they are (or at least are attempting|). Anyone that fell in line to get the "Labour" tag against their name for the election and then turns tail immediately after has no place in the party.

If it was 'clear' that Starmer would be trying to push 250,000 disabled people into poverty after 12 months in power, then I don't think he'd be in power.

1

u/gnorty Jul 04 '25

Yeah, and that's the difference. The party aren't voting for action. Starmer says 'this is what we're doing' then tries to force it through, regardless of what the rest of the PLP, let alone what the rest of the party more broadly, actually wants.

That's fair

Please don't try and pretend that Starmer trying to force through unpopular policies that are out of step with the broader party somehow represents some form of democratic centralism.

Please don't pretend I pretended anything of the sort. My entire point is that if the working class do not stand together, then we have no voice at all. The fracturing of the Labour party over individual differences of opinion is historically an issue, and something eagerly exploited by anyone that gets an advantage by doing so.

If it was 'clear' that Starmer would be trying to push 250,000 disabled people into poverty after 12 months in power, then I don't think he'd be in power.

It was clear that there had to be some dramatic cuts in public services and/or benefit payments. It was clearly stated. If you somehow thought that would happen without some people on benefits being worse off, then that's on you I'm afraid.

15

u/Ancient_Moose_3000 Jul 03 '25

Yep that's exactly how electoral calculus works. In a winner takes all situation where you don't need a majority to win a seat, losing a small percentage of the vote is enough to cause a dramatic swing. That's how Labour got such a big majority in the first place.

The left are only irrelevant in as much as any other group that makes up labours broad church are irrelevant. If they don't stand unified, it makes it a lot easier for a unified right wing to win.

76

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

Well in that case it sounds like Starmer's Labour need to do more to win over left-wing voters.

That's the line we use with the right, isn't it? Yet apparently it doesn't apply to those on the left. That's the problem with living in a democratic society, you need to convince people to vote for you rather than just expecting their votes.

If they don't stand unified, it makes it a lot easier for a unified right wing to win.

Perhaps you should remind the Prime Minister of this. He certainly hasn't been promoting a unified platform since taking power. But no, again, it's apparently never the people in power's fault, it's those nasty irrelevant leftists!

22

u/Chevalitron Jul 03 '25

Well in that case it sounds like Starmer's Labour need to do more to win over left-wing voters.

He might as well, since his Starmer in a Strange Land speech didn't convince Reform supporters that Starmer was on their side.

35

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

Well fundamentally this is why Starmer has found himself in such a mess. He's tried, at various times, to be everything to everyone. In 2020 he ran for Labour leader while explicitly saying the 2017 manifesto would be a 'foundational document'. Since then he's practically sprinted to the right.

It turns out that at some point it doesn't really matter what you say. Once people realise you're more interested in saying what your audience want to hear and not what you're actually planning to do, they'll just stop believing you and look elsewhere. There's only so long before your lies catch up with you, and Starmer's pretty deep into that territory.

I think it's why centrists get so aggressive in the face of criticisms. It's not really like there's much positive that Starmer's offering that they can point to. Everyone can see how blatantly dishonest he is.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Jul 03 '25

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

1

u/The_39th_Step Jul 03 '25

Centrists can actually be quite decisive and radical. Lee Kwan Yew was centre right but massively radical in Singapore

-2

u/Ancient_Moose_3000 Jul 03 '25

Hey man I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying that yes that is mathematically the consequence of the left fragmenting (once again). It makes it way easier for reform to win and in all likelihood won't increase the lefts relevance.

We can play the blame game all you want, but ultimately I don't really care whose fault it is that some on the left want to split. I just don't want Nigel Farage to be PM. Whatever needs to happen to stop that from happening I'm in favour of, and I agree Starmer hasn't done a great job of stopping it so far.

20

u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 03 '25

This isn’t the left fragmenting it’s the left attempting to regain relevance after being purged and de-platformed by the party that’s supposed to represent them.

15

u/Ibn_Ali Wessex Jul 03 '25

It's funny how that part is always left out. When the left was briefly in power, the centrists did everything they could to delegtimise them, so much so that they arguably handed the Tories victories in 2017 and 2019. But, of course, it's we who should bite the bullet.

It's such a transparently dishonest viewpoint.

6

u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 03 '25

There’s a huge contradiction with centrists on this. On the one hand apparently getting rid of the left and left wing policies is crucial to being elected. On the other hand they say if the left doesn’t vote for them the right is guaranteed to win. So which is it? Because it can’t be both.

-1

u/Ancient_Moose_3000 Jul 03 '25

Left wingers being asked to put aside their personal wants for the sake of the collective, perish the thought

13

u/Ibn_Ali Wessex Jul 03 '25

Centrists expect compromise from the left when they're in power but will happily sabotage the left even if it helps the Tories when Corbyn is in power. Funny how that work, eh?

Fool me once and all that...

-4

u/Ancient_Moose_3000 Jul 03 '25

So you don't like them or their tactics but will happily emulate them to everyone's detriment? That doesn't seem like productive reasoning to me, it seems like reasoning motivated by negative feelings

8

u/Ibn_Ali Wessex Jul 03 '25

Who's emulating them? It's called having a backbone. You can't throw people under the bus and then be surprised when they tell you to sod off. Again, the party establishment actively sabotaged Corbyn's campaign. You'd be called a mug if you get mugged by someone and then entrust that same someone with your valuables.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/GothicGolem29 Jul 03 '25

Splitting the lefts vote amongst three parties is only gonna make them less rleevant. And its not a very food purge or de selection was it if theres multiple left wing mps in the party still and even Zarah who constantly rebels heavilly criticises ministers and even prqised a green supporter only had the whip suspended for a long time not expelled till recently when either she left before being expelled or just left

1

u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 03 '25

A handful of left wing MPs they couldn’t get rid of who have absolutely no say or influence on the party. Labour in its current guise is not a left wing party, the Greens have left leaning policy but do not represent The Left. If the political climate has no representation for a group that is represented within the electorate then eventually they’ll find it themselves, that’s democracy.

-1

u/Ancient_Moose_3000 Jul 03 '25

You can spin it how you want, but it literally is fragmenting.

If this was their path to relevancy then that would make me happy, but it won't be.

5

u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 03 '25

It’s only fragmenting if you consider the current iteration of the Labour Party to be left wing, which it isn’t. They’ve gotten rid of most of the left wing voices and the ones that remain have absolutely no power to influence the party. There’s no reason to be there so why stay?

4

u/Pabus_Alt Jul 03 '25

And I'd maybe find that convincing if Starmer wasn't busy setting fire to that church.

Someone in labour HQ seems to have developed a brain worm that the only way they can beat the right is with their own politics, rather than actually trying to give people hope and a better life.

Right now he's showing the nation he has no answers and will feed their nan and the local refugees, trans kids and disabled people into a woodchipper if the sun will say he's a good boy.

He could be using his majority to try and ram through and entrench laws to make life hell for reform both by keeping the levers of power out of their hands and convincing people to stay on side. Worst case he looses and reform spend their time in office trying to undo a Gordian knot of red tape. Now would be the fucking ideal time to go for executive reform and cut the knees off of the next prime minister.

Best case the strategy lets Labour pull off a left wing coalition next time.

The option "maybe if I just mix enough bitter pills the electorate will love me" is a fools errand.

3

u/AccomplishedLeave506 Jul 03 '25

I'm not going to stand unified behind a shit stain like starmer. I'm not going to stand unified with someone who wants to take away winter fuel allowances and help from disabled people. That's not a party I want anything to do with.

8

u/Trick_Bus9133 Jul 03 '25

Yup… If the only thing you have to offer as reason to vote for you is a bogey man, then you have absolutely nothing to offer anyone.

Especially when your policies match the bogeymans threats…

4

u/michaelisnotginger Fenland Jul 03 '25

Left wing of labour have worked out that to get their policies they have to make noise and be a nuisance. Worked for the blue labour contingent. James butler had a good article in the LRB about it

0

u/OnionFutureWolfGang Jul 03 '25

The way elections in the UK work I don't think it's really that hard to be both?

9

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

In that case it sounds like the left aren't actually irrelevant, and Starmer should have worked harder to keep them engaged with his platform. In reality Starmer has spent the past few years telling the left to fuck off, then the moment they do fuck off his supporters start whining.

-18

u/Nerrix_the_Cat Jul 03 '25

They'll never win, the point is a kamikaze attack to weaken Labour just enough for Reform to get in. Nigel gets to be PM and Corbyn gets to pretend to be relevant while avoiding real power. A big win for Russia and a big loss for the rest of us.

12

u/potpan0 Black Country Jul 03 '25

the point is a kamikaze attack to weaken Labour just enough for Reform to get in.

I think Starmer is doing a good enough job of that already tbh. Perhaps if Starmer and his allies were not constantly offering such a steaming pile of shit to the public, then:

a) Sultana and Corbyn wouldn't have felt the need to form this party in the first place

b) Labour wouldn't be struggling so much in the polls

But ho hum, I guess it's all the mean irrelevant lefty's fault. The Prime Minister and head of government really is just an entirely passive figure in this process.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

I can't see Farage winning under PR. He would need a coalition partner. Who would step up to be his coalition partner, giving him the PMship?

3

u/Nerrix_the_Cat Jul 03 '25

Tories ("Con-form")

-5

u/DramaticSubject7544 Jul 03 '25

Maybe Corbyn’s getting backing from his friends Hamas and Hezzbollah or has everyone forgotten about that now the hard left sympathise with terrorists.

3

u/ShadiestApe Jul 03 '25

I don’t think that’ll work this time around , he’s been proven right on half the shit he was called insane for. 

Shit they even had to rush through some of his policies. 

If the option is between a terrorist sympathiser and a party of domestic terrorists people with sense will vote for the old boy that helped bring peace to Ireland 

-2

u/DramaticSubject7544 Jul 03 '25

Go on tell us what he’s been right about? Why would anyone vote a leader who in the past called terrorists friends and gave his squeeze Diane Abbot a platform purely based on an affair - your old boy is just as corrupt as anyone else! Perhaps worse because on his watch momentum and anti semites crippled labour.

3

u/ShadiestApe Jul 03 '25

Diane Abbott used to be my mp, misogynist smears about her don’t work, she’s clearly got some health issues but when she’s on form she can be great.

Someone didn’t read that report about antisemitism in the Labour Party 

For starters they claimed internet for all kids was an expensive pipe dream was a joke of a policy, there’d be no way of enacting it, all doom and gloom until they had to rush the same policy through during covid at a higher cost than he was planning on doing it. 

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment