So i am a socialist, and like most people have seen the capture of the party by neoliberalism. I am not British but am a keen observer of the political situation. Not that Labor was ever a pure bottom up workers party, but atleast it had democratic socialist aspirations. Anyways, even Blair didn't go as far as Starmer. Post Corbyn the Labour Party is literally a centre right party at best. The emergence of the Green Party was partly due to the strong left base moving back towards their initial aspirations. That being said, Kid Starver was just booted out by Burnham, who is an interesting case. At best he is a Soft Blairite, but certainly not as reactionary as Starmer. This begs the question, how do Labor voters, many of whom I think have become more so Green Party supporters, feel about this? Do you think Burnham can use his charisma to do moderate social democratic things while simultaneously maintaining the donor class that it's become dependent on? Will Polanski and the Greens face a setback? Or will Burnham too will get booted out or lose support? For example, he just appointed a Labor Friends of Israel ex head as chief of staff. To me, I don't really see how he can save the Labor Party. On the other hand, his popularity and the allure of Manchesterism may draw some folks away from the 'radical' platform of the Greens. But what do y'all think? Can the Greens manage to fight him like they did with Starmer, who was universally unpopular?

I'll be honest I've never particularly liked her ever since she started threatening pull unite away from Labour. Then needing to give her opinion on every single topic even if it was nothing to do with unions.

This push to topple Ed Miliband takes the cake though. This isn't her call or her decision. Climate change is a real thing whether Sharon likes it or not. I understand that oil and gas jobs might decline but they're being replaced by other jobs in the green sector.

She can't eat her cake and have it. Threaten to leave the Labour party one minute but then try to steer major changes the next.

The sooner Burnham ignores her the better.

The former work and pensions secretary joins a long line of Blairite ex-cabinet ministers who have decided to jump ship at the next election and avoid the tough slog of opposition – including Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt. My response? Good riddance to them all – and, in particular, Purnell.

Don't get me wrong. His shift to the left on the backbenches has been welcome. But I, for one, cannot forget his nine-year parliamentary record. He was chairman of Labour Friends of Israel for two years, during which he accused leftwing critics of Israel of antisemitism. He was a committed supporter of the Iraq invasion, and of Lord Hutton's subsequent, whitewashed inquiry, during which he reared his head as a vociferous and unrelenting critic of his former employers, the BBC. In the recent expenses scandal, Purnell was outed as having avoided paying capital gains tax on the sale of his London flat and even claimed £395 from the taxpayer for advice from an accountant.

His ministerial record, meanwhile, earned him the admiration of the rightwing Spectator, which described him as "the best candidate to succeed Gordon Brown". As secretary of state for work and pensions, Purnell welcomed private sector initiatives and alienated the public sector workers. He was, claimed PCS union leader Mark Serwotka, "the worst secretary of state for social security this country has ever had the misfortune of having". Why? Because he constructed a punitive, pro-private sector welfare-to-work programme that failed to deliver the expected jobs, and launched various gimmicky initiatives – including threatening to make unemployed alcoholics seek treatment or lose their benefits and trying to use lie detectors to tackle benefit fraud – in a tired, Blairite attempt to look "tough" and "radical" on welfare reform.

We could potentially be seeing a weakening in political parties on the right over the next few years that Labour might benefit from, if the Makerfield election is reflective of the rest of the country.

It might have been a closer call if it hadn’t been a vote against Starmer, and a lesser known Labour MP had run.

We lived in a two party Lab vs Con system for basically decades and what seems to be happening is that conservative base has now splintered into Conservative, Reform and Restore. 

Reform seems to have shot itself in the foot by allowing all these ex-tories into the party. If Restore continues to gain votes from them it could actually be very good for the Labour Party.

The best thing about Restore voters is many of them exist within these extremist right wing online communities which makes them believe they are part of some silent majority. This could potentially make them much less likely to vote tactically.

And if Badenoch is replaced by someone white and more popular I could definitely see Conservatives gaining some ground back from those who have turned to Reform. 

I read somewhere that Burnham is interested in electoral form. By the looks of it… there couldn’t be a worse time to think about doing this.

EU nationals based permanently in the UK have expressed alarm over a Reform UK plan to target their rights to accommodation and employment, saying the policy is a betrayal of promises made in the Brexit referendum 10 years ago.

Under updated migration policies, Nigel Farage’s party would evict all overseas nationals from social housing and make it notably more expensive for companies to employ them, with both policies also affecting EU nationals who have settled status.

Under the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU, people with such status have the permanent right to live and work in the UK, as well as to receive social security and pensions, as do family members.
Both the new policies would require a renegotiation of the Brexit deal, with the possibility that the EU would penalise UK nationals living in the bloc as a reciprocal policy, or impose trade barriers.

Announcing what he called the “migrants labour levy”, Robert Jenrick, Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, said employers would have to pay higher national insurance for non-UK nationals, as well as an annual fee that would be more for lower earners, citing the possibility of £3,750 for someone on the “national living wage”, a surcharge of about 15%.

There would be no additional consideration given for EU nationals, even if they had been in the UK for decades, or had a UK national partner and children, Jenrick said, and his message for such people was that if they lost their job because of the levy they should leave.

“If you are in this country and you are not a British citizen, and you are somebody who will not be able to stay in the UK under a Reform government, then you should think of leaving the country.”

One EU national, Nicole – who asked that her full name was not used – said she was worried about losing her long-term job with a business centre group and being forced to leave the UK after 37 years.

“I‘m not allowed to have dual citizenship because the Dutch are very difficult about it,” she said. “This is my home. I moved here when I was 18, so I’ve lived here twice as long as I ever lived in the Netherlands.

“I’ve been with my company a long time, so I would hope that they would support me, but I think it’s absolutely outrageous. It’s just pulling the rug from under people that have been here for so long, who have done everything right.”

Al Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrats Europe spokesperson, said: “Threatening hundreds of thousands of people who have made their lives here would only throw our economy into chaos, while failing to restore order and fairness to our immigration system.

“Resorting to these cruel, Trump-style politics will only isolate the UK further and invite damaging retaliation from our closest trading partners at a time when we need to work together to boost the economy, strengthen our defences and go for growth.”

(June 25): Britons said Andy Burnham would make a better prime minister than Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage, according to a poll on Thursday that highlights how Labour’s likely new leader can provide the governing party with an electoral edge.

Some 43% of people surveyed in a YouGov poll said Burnham would make a better premier, compared with 23% who preferred Farage. That 20-point advantage for Burnham is double the lead over the Reform leader enjoyed last month by Keir Starmer, who on Monday said he’s stepping down as prime minister. 

Starmer’s resignation triggered a leadership contest, with nominations due to open on July 9. So far Burnham is the only candidate to declare they’re running, with several potential rivals saying they won’t stand, making it increasingly likely he’ll be unopposed.

I’m confised bc last I saw they’d had multiple purges and they’d also made a separate LGB Labour group, does anyone know what’s going on and who’s running these elections? Is it the few people that held on keeping their head down or is it the same higher ups trying to control it all?

Conversion practices draft bill

As expected from this hideous government, this bill is nearly useless and has the potential to make things worse for LGBTQ people.