UK Politics

4335 readers

210 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Consider becoming a Labour member (feddit.uk)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Kier Starmer is not going to make it until the next election, this much is clear. This means that there will, in the next couple of years, be a leadership election. We need to pull Labour back towards the left and make it a party that can say it speaks to the working man/woman.

We need a leader that will impose fair taxation on the billionaire class.

To do this a strong leftist wing of the party needs to be present in the memberhip.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] omcgo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Part III of Orwell's The Lion and the Unicorn, "The English Revolution":

"In England there is only one Socialist party that has ever seriously mattered, the Labour Party. It has never been able to achieve any major change, because except in purely domestic matters it has never possessed a genuinely independent policy. It was and is primarily a party of the trade unions, devoted to raising wages and improving working conditions. This meant that all through the critical years it was directly interested in the prosperity of British capitalism. In particular it was interested in the maintenance of the ~~British Empire~~ Neo-liberal economy, for the wealth of England was drawn largely from ~~Asia and Africa~~ foreign manufacturing partners. The standard of living of the trade-union workers, whom the Labour Party represented,depended indirectly on the sweating of ~~Indian coolies~~ insert currently exploited Asian workforce, to whom we've off-shored dire work conditions. At the same time the Labour Party was a Socialist party, using Socialist phraseology, thinking in terms of an old-fashioned anti-imperialism and more or less pledged to make restitution to the coloured races."

A party tied to trade unions will forever be tied to the capital class, unless industry is first nationalised.

The book makes incredible reading now in light of the recent 'Patriotic' rallies; UK conditions are much the same as 1931-1939, with Starmer our Chamberlain whom has the impossible task of appeasing many incompatible sides (the wealthy who fund him and neo-liberal 'growth', the middle class who are losing their stake; the impoverished who are looking toward what they think is the quickest way out - Facism)

The book makes an incredible case for a distinctly British Socialism: non-monetary-based classes which retains the idiosyncrasies that makes Britain Britain.