Get them recruited
Get them trained
Get them armed
Get them shipped
Get them turned into mincemeat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c5y9gr1jr91o>>2648211Her utter absence of charisma also helps.
>>2648213I think she is a good speaker to be fair to her
>>2648215she's also one of the fitter MPs we have
>>2648208the UK is larger than one city, its also just one aspect of it there is clearly other factors.
>>2648204just another shade of tory who cares
>>2648211trvke
>>2648223trvke would tongue her bum
i have terrible sense of dread that the british state wants WW3 and that this purgatory of treat-dom that we are languishing in is shortly coming to an end
>>2648246Yeah its in the air, everyone can feel it.
>>2648051I'm not sure that's fair. If, by some miracle, the Greens took over and betrayed everyone that'd still be a step up from Labour
1. To betray you, they'd have to have got your hopes up to begin with
2. Most likely, they'd keep that hopeful rhetoric even as they stabbed you in the eyes, Nicola Sturgeon style.
3. Assuming they did use the Sturgeon playbook, there would be some good but insufficient initiatives between the bungling incompetence and status-quo betrayals.
It's perhaps the most subtly infuriating thing about Starmer's government: do-nothing right-wing social democracy
which says the right thing is cheap and easy. Labour could be emphasizing their rail "re-nationalization" program aggressively and making "oohh-err" noises about social conservatism and anti-immigration sentiment without actually doing anything, but they don't. They do the wrong thing, which is understandable under their current incentive structure,
while saying the wrong thing, which is unforgivable.
If I ran Labour,
even within Labour's own suicidal fiscal targets, they'd be polling at least a consistent 25-30% of the vote and the Green vote share would be at least 40% lower.
>>2648407>that'd still be a step up from LabourThis is what is meant by a reversion to the ideological consensus; the Green party poses itself as a direct substitution for that era of governance in which it can present an image of its own internal unity as capable of providing it a mandate in achieving its broader policy ideals through electoral success by its appeals to politically disenfranchised and skeptical voters through promising the world. Thus the party is composed through the most ridiculous game of charades in which its representatives battle politically to curry favour with Labour's thinning share by donning whichever outfit is required to secure them power.
The premise of the Green's growth for these clowns hinges on those key drivers of social and political decay which are the result of years of a purposefully designed deadlock between the two main parties in their governance. The party itself has absolutely no coherent understanding of these material factors and simply envisions the crisis which is currently occurring as the result of a progressive failure inherent in the two party system; thus the Greens further label themselves as a democratic alternative without ever needing to account for the fact that should they gain victory they will be hung, drawn, and quatered by the same necessities which presently face Labour, those being compromise with British business interests - managing the exchequer - and factional infighting.
In turn, the same structural defecits which merely led to a reshuffling of power would as a result destroy the Greens. The party itself has no independent momentum seperate from that which has led to the current political-economic divisions of British society nor does it have the capacity to build it; their present meagre success is the result of the disintegrating social order which has endured as a result of the legacy of those temporary victories which were afforded to workers in Britain as a result of concessions granted to it by the bourgeoisie in the maintenance of an imperialist agenda.
The party itself represents the absolute decadance of British bourgeois society, in that it seeks to impose that particular form of moral individualism which is unique to the capitalist social order by simply attatching an ethical conscience to the state's systematic repression of workers whilst promising little more than private subsidies in its goal for an energy transition to renewables. Its political apparatus is festooned with absolute
clowns who engage in the most prolific apologia for bourgeois society whilst positioning themselves as antagonists to the contemporary state of affairs.
Labour, however pathetically, have the reptutation of being proficent technocrats in their appeasment of bourgeois interests through an institutional awareness of their role, something the Greens have as of yet to learn
>>2648407> and making "oohh-err" noises about social conservatism and anti-immigration sentiment without actually doing anything, but they don't. This is fundamentally because of the polarising social changes which have led to a sustained political reaction against migrants, in which Labour are seen as part of the legitimate target of an anti-establishment populist vote (Reform) along with the Conservatives who are taken as at fault.
If they were to attempt to fight back in the chamber in the vein of opposing anti-migrant rhetoric it would be political suicide, as their turnout would drop even lower.
>>2648266labour are shit
tories are shit
reform are shit
its nothing but shit
>>2648533'Clown' is actually the wrong term for these individuals who form its representatives; they are, like the rest of the ruling class, social parasites who strive as well-purposed tools to fashion society in their own dismal image whilst securing for themselves their own private collective means for well-being.
Their fictionalised relation to society under the most grotesque appeals to the sacrosanct values of bourgeois democracy, individual justice, and climate activism are nothing more than convenient cloaks for a philistine sentimentalism which excuses the actions of its economic base in its goal for the maintenance of wage slavery and production under the dictates of capital.
In short, they are the absolute dregs of British bourgeois society whose apologia provides currency to the sustained illusion given to workers as to the false representation of their class interests by smothering class conflict with a veneer of moral idealism.
>>2648266>Migrant-rape mention>Migrant hotel mention>Benefit scounrger mention>Anti-union mentionBoy this speech has everything
>>2648588Doing anti-union rhetoric in 2026 is such a cargo cult. You fuckers won! The union movement is unironically weaker than it was in the 1860s, what the fuck do you want exactly?? For them to just be illegal? Would anyone actually notice if they were???
>>2648266Besides the discourse of anti-migrant hysteria, for anyone who missed it Jenrick does something interesting in this speech where he explicitly counterposes the ECHR against national defence priorities.
Their attempt at abandoning the ECHR would offer them the opportunity to draft a British bill of rights which would give them a free hand at completely redrawing the legal framework in which they can curtail basic freedoms such as the right to political demonstration and grant broader powers to the security state, i.e. by reworking terror convictions. In short, repression.
>>2648607It's a strategy of class rule designed to weaken and isolate their political opponents. So long as the threat of organised labor exists they will never rest. If you go back to the speech there's a point in which he refers to 'dangerous' left elements; what's happening here is a broad base appeal to both their members as well as the various state actors in which they're signalling that they plan to adopt sustained policy measures which work to exclude fringe political elements from seeking to commandeer positions of power that wish to undo its civil and national defence architecture. It's a language of securitisation wherein an opposition is proscribed on the basis of the threat it poses to the state and thus deligitimised.
This is basically a reference to Your Party and an attempt to further sanction political action which is counter to British strategic interests by circumventing issues of Parliamentary accountability regarding foreign policy and policing powers. Essentially they will oust any democratic oversight on the management of these affairs through a majority, using the most backward nationalist rhetoric in order to justify this. Again, what's absolutely dangerous is that regarding Palestine the Home Office has already intervened in a judicial ruling to charge 600 protestors under the Terror Act.
When Reform wins this will look like childs play.
>>2648554It wouldn't though. The people who voted Labour in 2024 are not the the kind of people who'd be put off my pro immigration rhetoric - if they were they wouldn't vote Labour! Starmer's tilts against immigration have done nothing to win over anti-immigration voters, but much to alienate Labour voters. If you want to argue immigration is a real problem the solution is simple: talk positively about it all the time, but slash immigration numbers in the background.
Labour's fundamental, unforgivable problem is that they do not understand their brand. They are a party associated with being good on the NHS, pro-welfare, and pro-migrant. They've succeeded in destroying 2/3 or maybe even 3/3 of those pillars and instead of elevating their poll ratings to the old Tory or current Reform numbers, they've decimated their own support because - shockingly - the people who voted Labour did so because they liked what the Labour brand vaguely represented. (If you wish to maintain that this is a right wing country and their brand is dead weight, fair enough: but they've taken a ~35% of the vote brand and made it a ~17% of the vote brand)
Imagine if the SNP declared tomorrow it was anti independence because polls show Yes would lose a future referendum: the result wouldn't be the SNP getting 55% of the vote, it would be a chunk of their Yes voting support abandoning them while no unionists defected because they've already got strong anti-independence parties. Every day, Starmer goes out and does the equivalent of the SNP declaring itself anti-independence.
The sturgeon comparison holds here too: she went out and declared that a referendum was coming any day now for the best part of a decade, while having no real plan for one. The SNP declare themselves probably independence but don't actually have a plan to get around the UK saying no. People are a bit annoyed at them for it, but they'd bleed even more support if they said they'd given up. >>2648670>The people who voted Labour in 2024 are not the the kind of people who'd be put off my pro immigration rhetoricThis simply isn't true; migration is a radioactive issue which has propelled Reform to the level of success it currently enjoys. You can argue about this as much as you like, but the fundamental fact remains that the media have geared the electorate into a hysteria regarding Conservative migrant figures and what is percieved as Labour's inaction regarding illegal migration. Labour were elected on the promise of cracking down on migration following what was viewed as Conservative incompetence and its catastrophic results for workers economically.
>Kurdistan demo
>Walk past main theatre
>loads of people outside
>4 white british bleached hair-fake tan women, 2 younger 2 older
<they start throwing up kurdish hand signs
Life is funny sometimes.
Calling it now, the "Greenland issue" is a psy-op to try to goad China into Taiwan this year by NATO.
>>2648696What's funny about that? Eveyone knows Kurdistan is a liberal issue.
If you use twatter you are literally retarded. And I don't mean that as insult, but there is nothing substantial you can say in 200 characters. That platform is literally designed to breed retarded people. Which is worrying considering most politicians now spend most of their time on it.
>>2648682Reform is a realignment of the right. The main Lab > Reform voter pathway is 2017 Lab > 2019 Con > 2024 Ref or Con > now definite Ref. There are very few straight 2024 Lab > Now Ref switchers.
Labour were elected by default with mostly the same voter coalition as 2019 (minus some of the left), low turnout and a right-wing split turned that into a victory. The fallacy people make is assuming that Labour picked up seats by gaining right wing voters rather than by holding their left/liberal 2019 voters while the Tories lost half their vote to Reform. If the right weren't split, Labour would've gone down to a dismal defeat in 2024. (Indeed, you'd basically get the 2019 election all over again)
Labour's current polling woes cannot, therefore, be blamed on losing voters to the right. When Labour loses voters to the right it gets ~30% of the vote as in 1983 or 2019, to poll below that Labour has to actively destroy their core vote base. That is their failure: I am not confident I could win the 2029 election for Labour, but I am confident I could maintain ~30% of the vote and keep the party alive with my radical strategy of "telling Labour voters the sort of things they want to hear from a Labour prime minister instead of cosplaying as a Reform government in such a way as to piss off both Labour and Reform voters"
Reform won't kill Labour, but The Greens and Lib Dems easily can.
The LDs really are failing too, you'd think rich libs would ditch Labour for them. Maybe they're addicted to backing losers. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50658-why-did-britons-vote-the-way-they-did-in-2024Nobody voted Labour to control immigration but lots of people voted Reform for that purpose.
(Which is obvious: who buys Irn Bru for health? Quorn for it's meat content?)
>>2648792If this were true the party would have backed down in its attempts to outflank Reform on anti-migrant rhetoric; it is precisely because both their core and swing voters have jumped ship to Reform that the empty shell of their base is left to be hollowed out between the Greens and the Lib Dems.
A shift has occured in Britain regarding migration which has driven the issue to its present apogee with the burning of hotels and the serialising of supposed rape scandals as hot bed issues. Again, they are symptoms of the wider social decay that are percieved to be the legacy of the two party system; Reform have united cross-wing support from the electorate precisely as a reaction to this.
Attempting to explain the basis for this support as limited to a realignment of just one spectrum misses the entire point in that the cross-party division of worker's interests between Labour and the Conservatives has vanished, hence it makes no sense to talk anymore of a left-right division. Historical developments are underway in that the reorgnaisation of the bourgeois political establishment within these parties are reflections or expressions of the fractures which exist within British society.
What exists today in 2026 is a transitory social order defined by the movement from a post-war political consensus to one in which Britain is repositioning itself within the international system. In this the political interests of workers, in so far as they take shape, are drawn between one of a progressively growing extremism in social conservatism and a more broadly defined liberal worldview.
Attempting to explain this change through the rubric of the conventional party dynamics which have reigned for the past 80 years is nonsense. The Greens do not stand to succeed from Labour but merely inherit an inert voter base which provides it nothing in terms of oppositional power. The situation 5 years ago was unbearable, the situation today is catastrophic, as democratic rule within Britain has been reduced to a one-party consensus that has united an electorate through the most backward political reaction behind the growing savageness of the bourgeoisie.
>>2648736The character limit hasn’t been a thing in years, trump is posting full essays constantly
>>2648834>>2648792This is to say that you cannot understand the present situation nor the shift in support from Labour to Reform, and Labour's subsequent death, through the traditional party model.
The sucumbing of Labour and the Conservatives to Reform is directly a product of their adoption of austerity and the refusal to change direction. This is what vitiates Reform and its supporters behind a blind adherence to the proposition of change under even more extreme pro-business policies.
I despise all royalists. Saw through that paedophile freak Charles Windsor's throat.
nigel is just playing the trump 2016 playbook but modified a bit for his own brand and for uk politics. the whole outsider who promises to change things. labour arent going to budge on immigration, and tories shot themselves in the foot with boris wave. boris would still be PM if he had lowered immigration
>>2648834>>2648839I am not using the traditional party model, I am using an advertising model. You would not sell Irn Bru as a healthy English drink - that's not a credible brand association. It will alienate the people who buy it due to its Scottish association, but not gain a single health conscious English consumer.
Similarly, you cannot sell Labour as an anti-immigrant party. At best you can convince anti-immigrant voters to put the NHS first (Labour's brand is, after all, credible on the NHS), but that can be done without offering anything but platitudes on immigration.
Reform's success is overhyped: they have never polled over 40%. It's a good result for a newish market entrant and it's an election-winning figure if they can hold it, but it's nothing close to "unifying" the electorate. On today's polling, Ref+Con get 47% of the vote - scary stuff until you realize that's only 1% more than Con+Brexit Party in 2019.
>>2648834One-party dictatorship*
What needs to be clarified for the context of this discussion is that what is meant by British society is bourgeois society proper. The form that political representation takes therein is a direct mirror to that mode of expression society takes for itself, i.e. as a capitalist one.
This is to say that the hetrogenous views of British workers are formed beneath the banner of bourgeois democratic parties that are, in all forms, allied in one shape or another to the various business interests they represent. What is meant by the fact that British society is fractured is to state that that social order which has existed in the form of the post-war consensus has finally shattered, primarily because the world itself is being reshaped on a global level to one which is multipolar.
The surface expression that these class divisions take are being reorganised into those more similar of 19th century Capitalism. I can't be bothered to go into this at half 4 in the morning, but it's utterly fucking stupid to project as eternal the static left-right dichotomy of Parliamentary wings onto current affairs.
All that cares to be said is that British workers must reconcile themselves with the fact that what is about to break out is the most blatant, brutal conflict between the two classes and the ever intensifying class rule of the bourgeoisie.
In this, what the failing alternatives to Labour represent is an attempt by said workers is to purchase by way of selling their vote to these shysters for the partial relief from the extremities of class rule.
>>2648607unions are protectionist rackets and should be considered bourgeois
>>2649008e.g doctors holding patient health to ransom for mo moneh
>>2648620well yeah…
the right wing of this country has been using the issue of immigration as a pretext to abolish human rights for a while now. they talk about it openly. in 1997 we got a new constitution which the right see as the pandora's box for all of today's political incompetence, despite of course, blair being the most competent PM we've had in decades. its strange that these people always blame blair and not the 15 years of tory leadership afterwards, including the floodgates being opened with the boriswave, following the disastrous brexit referendum. remember when farage said brexit would save the NHS? now he's got a new scam everyone is lining up for.
>>2648464reform voters are not patricians, im afraid.
>>2649008>>2649010
>t. benefits claimantget a job, we should all be holding these people ransom for more monies.
>>2649248>get a jobtheres zero point being employed except for status
>>2649307not having to deal with the bennies office is reason enough
>>2649313just fake a disability to your GP and then send in your ESA form to the DWP. its done online now.
>>2649315but I actually want to work a job
>>2649246are you illiterate
the first section of that post explicitly articulates that a green government
would not work, but might make nice noises as it betrayed you.
the second section of that post condemns labour for not making nice noises as it fails. (we cannot really say it betrayed, as it failed to create any expectations it'd be good)
the last paragraph explicitly says "i could get better poll numbers for labour
without fixing things, by sticking to their own doomed economic policy", which, again, takes "neoliberal electoralism won't work at fixing things" for granted.
the fundamental basis for the post is taking the doomed nature of electoralism for granted so much that it becomes a game of "academically, how well can you poll without fixing anything?" rather than a question of how we fix things. the reason we're wasting oxygen on this is because the situation is so bleak, that's about the best you can imagine: not good social democracy at the ballot box, but a bastard who's at least smart enough to lie to protect his own image.
(and, equally, it's something to explain: "why did corbyn fail?" is easy compared to "why is starmer failing to lie instead of following the Sturgeon/Ardern model of talk without much delivery?")
Political fallout from the latest detection continues:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/16/robert-jenrick-tells-lies-says-kemi-badenoch-conservative-nigel-farage-reform-ukNothing more than a privileged social strata of vermin crawling atop one another as they reposition themselves in that rats nest of British Parliamentary democracy.
Jenrick is seeking along with Reform to cause as much damage to the Tories as they attempt to hold its head beneath the water, in effect drowning its main opposition.
The only thing of note is that he issues a statement declaring that 'the future of the country is at stake', echoing the eschatological narrative of the far right propagandists by employing the same narrative.
>>2649661weird how they catch the white ones before they do it
Unique IPs: 21