*throws 23p in Chuka's hat*
The Independent Group for Change | Have decided to disband after ten months
- Thread starter Giant Midget
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Judging from my Twitter feed (because I’ve yet to meet a single person in real life who’ll admit to thinking this is a great idea) they just seem like a very elaborate way for a bunch of middle aged media liberals to embrace the maxim of “getting more right wing as you get older” whilst still getting to pretend to themselves they’re being cool and radical...
I can’t think of a single other unique and worthwhile purpose they serve, tbh.
I can’t think of a single other unique and worthwhile purpose they serve, tbh.
It means we will get fewer stories saying "a senior Labour MP said *insert some shit about Corbyn*", so that's useful and worthwhile
The Labour party has shifted fairly significantly to the left. And some people who may be OK with that also feel they could not vote for it because of concerns about anti semitism.
The Tory party is being taken over by its right wing, the next leader may well be drawn from the ERG, or be highly sympathetic to them.
The Lib Dems are toxic because of their association with the Tories and betraying their student supporters.
So there is a gaping chasm of unrepresented centre ground. Whether there is much appetite for that from voters at the moment is a fair question, if voters wanted consensual, centrist politics the parties would not be in the state they are in. But still, there will be voters that would like something resembling a Blairite option to vote for.
That is what TIG is surely trying to be?
Another way of looking at this is that the evolution of our politics has rendered old left-versus-right politics as largely redundant. It still exists of course, as evidenced by the resurgence of the left under Corbyn, but it is no longer the most relevant divide in politics. This is why both the parties are so utterly divided. For many people the more relevant question in determining their politics is whether they are nationalist or internationalist. Both parties have their nationalists and both have their internationalists. If we had parties that affiliated themselves along these lines we might have a parliament that could get some stuff done. TIG seems to me to be a tentative step towards creating an explicitly and unashamedly internationalist party. A party that the "anywheres" can vote for.
I can completely understand why someone would say they have no interest in TIG, would never vote for this party, this party has no hope, this is a waste of time etc. But to question what purpose they serve seems an odd stance, to me at least. The way I see it this is a completely necessary, I am even going to say vital step in the realignment of British politics.
Precisely, they would have to do something pretty drastic at this point to not get my vote. I imagine I'm one of many who can't vote Labour or Tory right now that are looking for a progressive alternative.
Dobba to post a 
in 5...4..3..2...1
in 5...4..3..2...1
In that case I will consider my opinion comprehensively shredded.
Makes sense... The liberal brand is damaged but they have an existing and effective operation at grassroots level which in truth would benefit both parties if there was a snap election
The word progressive has lost all meaning if this bunch of cnuts can be labelled with it.Dobba to post a
in 5...4..3..2...1
As someone who is a funny tinge I can't see myself voting for this bunch of clowns anytime soln
TING UK, however, were racist right from the off, and count amongst their members MPs who voted against LGBT rights and near universally for consistent military intervention in the Middle East, and whose leader voted against Human Rights legislation, and for a much stricter immigration and asylum system. So anyone pretending they care about racism in the Labour Party (a genuine issue) is being pretty wilfully selective.
Change UK, however, have a Tory donor, a Tory leader, are largely in favour of continued austerity, and have members who support Fracking, the reduction of benefits and the privatisation of water.
Change UK, however, are clearly going to appeal to those anti-Tory students, what with their “let’s be mostly Tory, with a lot of Tories, and/or return to Blairism” - (notoriously popular with students) super fresh and exciting appeal to the youth.
Pretending you can’t vote for the Lib Dems because of students is a pretty ridiculous reason to invent a slightly more right wing version of them that students won’t go near, just so you get to feel relevant.
Yes. Like I said...Well off middle aged people nostalgic for the 90s who want to cloak their “getting more right wing with age” under the visage of “something new and radical!” despite actually being a slightly more right wing Lib Dems, and a paen to the exact status quo the electorate has repeatedly rebelled against. The political equivalent of an aging rocker releasing a solo album about his 4th divorce, and yer dad telling you it’s his best work yet!
Essentially people who probably didn’t care that much about politics in the good old days, and would really rather go back to a time when they didn’t have to think about it... but importantly, get to pretend to themselves they’re being progressive. Whilst actually just being kinda Tory.
I know what they’re trying to be... it’s just... shit.
And I’m not much of a fan of Corbyns Labour, either. But I’m also not an idiot, whose going to run to the first loose collection of careerists with no clear or discernible identity beyond “stop Brexit!” - whilst also managing to sabotage every soft compromise (something actual Labour are trying to work with) and making No Deal more likely in the process, all in the name of trying to force the cork back into the bottle....
What on earth is vital about trying to return the political landscape to 2010? It’s just ignoring all the probems that have arisen since, purely for the benefit of the people who were already oblivious to them
What is remotely progressive about them? Name me a progressive policy? Their manifesto didn’t once mention anything about social equality or anything pertaining to it.. the word “minority” is used once, and LGBT not at all...probably ‘cos they don’t have any coherent ideolgy, and they’re funded by Tories, lead by Tories, and have precisely the same attitude to “progressiveism” as most Tories.
And hey, look, if your ideals do line up with theirs (whatever they are) then more power to you. It’s good to have more options. But you don’t get to pretend you’re being progressive, or indeed “changing” anything, just because they say so.
Last edited:
The one bit of my post you didnt quote was the bit that answered this. The single biggest faultline in politics now isnt how high we set the tax level or whether to have workers on boards, even if Corbyn's revival makes it seem like maybe it it. Its about nationalism versus internationalism. And here is a party that seems to be defining itself as taking a side in that debate.
As for the rest of your post, youve given plenty of perfectly good reasons why you wont vote for them. Youve made some good points as to why I probably shouldnt vote for them either. But as I said, not really proved they serve no purpose.
They serve a purpose as a party attempting to occupy the middle ground. They serve a purpose as a party that is unambiguous in its support of multilateralism. And they serve a purpose, the main purpose, by chipping away at the two party system. With a very, very tiny hammer, admittedly, but at least they are hitting at it. I would be delighted, politically, if that system was smashed to smithereens in coming years, so any efforts to that end, no matter how meagre at this point, are welcome as far as Im concerned.
But yes, the anti war thing, the LGBT rights thing, illustrates why the Lib Dems might be right to maintain a separate identity from this lot.
But are the Lib Dems conclusively not this? I mean, maybe they aren’t? I’m not actually sure. But they’ve always seemed pretty internationalist.
So again, I don’t really understand the rationale in inventing a new Lib Dems, to stand for all the good Lib Dem things, under the basis that the Lib Dem’s aren’t cool enough to vote for anymore... and then doing or standing for all the things that made the Lib Dem’s too uncool to vote for!
I admit it is an assumption I've made, being anti-brexit counts is progressive enough for me right now, as it is by far the most important thing going on in politics. I will make sure to read their manifesto before repeating the word though.
I'm not expecting them to be the perfect party which aligns with all my views, not by any stretch. More a temporary preferential option to the alternatives (its a very low bar).
That’s fair. But then, how do align that with them essentially sabotaging any chance of a soft Brexit (Customs Union would’ve passed with their support, and Common Market 2.0 wouldve been close) and potentially increasing the chances of No Deal? They aren’t even being useful on the one issue they were invented to be useful for!
Last edited:
Maybe for people who are internationalist, but hate trans people? You were the one who was just explaining to me how unprogressive they are. Unless you think the LDs arent progressive either?
Or maybe they think the Lib Dems brand is too toxic and is beyond salvaging. And they hope natural LD voters wont notice their former voting records.
I have to admit i havent looked that hard at TIG or the voting records of their members. My main and simplest point, really, is that I dont think the two party system is relevant anymore. So I do want to see more smaller parties, I do want to see the big parties fracture, I do want to see increased pressure on the FPTP system (even though that will also amplify the voices of parties and politicians I personally dislike.) So my instinctive - rather than deeply considered and well researched - reaction to the formation of this new party is favourable.
Last edited:
Seems a huge outlier. YouGov, BMG, and Comres polled them at 9%, 8%, and 9% (although YouGov was Wales only) over the exact same period.
I would be tempted to say that they're only asking people in places who can definitely vote for them (i.e. constituents), but the info accompanying it seems to suggest otherwise.
Congrats to Chuka for reaching full support from his target demographic.
thats actually pretty goodI think those reporting 9% before they even had a policy might be the outliers. They had a wave of coverage when first announced so its not surprising that had an early bounce.
Without a mass exodus of MPs they'll soon find out that it's a long road to relevancy, just ask the Lib Dems or Greens which people like but never vote for.
Nah, the polling for those was carried out at the same time as the Survation polling (in fact, I think a couple of them were actually later).
I really wouldn't be surprised if you turned out to be correct in the long term, but that's not a conclusion that can explain why Survation are so out of step with three other polls here.
A major factor, obviously, will be whether they're actually able to field enough candidates for any hypothetical polling they get to translate into something substantial nationally. And even if they do find lots, there may be the problem of a lack of name recognition, which undoubtedly still boosts a lot of incumbents.
There's a reason the big two still tend to do well in the end. And parties who are able to threaten them either regionally or nationally (Lib Dems, SNP) tend to build up over years and decades, and often have a fairly respectable history behind them already and a base to build on. I'm not sure that's applicable with this lot. Their start as a party hasn't exactly been too remarkable and so I struggle to see them sustaining themselves as a smaller entity which can then build itself into something more substantial.
There's a reason the big two still tend to do well in the end. And parties who are able to threaten them either regionally or nationally (Lib Dems, SNP) tend to build up over years and decades, and often have a fairly respectable history behind them already and a base to build on. I'm not sure that's applicable with this lot. Their start as a party hasn't exactly been too remarkable and so I struggle to see them sustaining themselves as a smaller entity which can then build itself into something more substantial.
Survation were also outliers in 2017 and turned out right.
Doh!
This is the single greatest political party ever created.
Of the 4 MPs you can clearly make out in this photo, 3 of them endorsed austerity repeatedly. The other is the dumb cnut saying they voted against austerity.
Of the 4 MPs you can clearly make out in this photo, 3 of them endorsed austerity repeatedly. The other is the dumb cnut saying they voted against austerity.
The problem with that poster wasn't that it was factually inaccurate but that it used Nazi imaginary to degrade and dehumanise brown people.
Last edited:
Greatest. Party. Ever.
A good idea is a good idea forever. Also Nicola Murray from the thick of it came to mind as well.
Almost feel sorry for her.