UK Politics

4332 readers

78 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

Zarah Sultana says she and Corbyn have reconciled and can co-lead new party (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 days ago by moderatecentrist@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Zarah sounds similar to Zack Polanski, the Greens leader, with her messaging:

“The truth is, Reform is just another wing of the political establishment,” she said. “Funded by billionaires and aristocrats, fronted by a millionaire stockbroker, an ex-public school boy, Nigel Farage. He is peddling racism to distract us from the real agenda: more privatisation, more deregulation, more handouts for the rich, more cuts for everyone else.”

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

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 16 hours ago

Another way to look at it. Trying to hide their disagreements from the membership was the fault.

Their were 2 sides to the argument. One side from day one seemed to think not informing the public of plans and disagreements was the correct approach. While the other multiple times announced things that side disagreed on.

Both sides seems a little childish. But ah ATM they are not the actual leaders just acting ones. Until the membership decides, and these arguments give the membership great data to make these choices.

Where as if one side had managed to keep both arguments under wraps as the intended. The membership would be totally uninformed about their management styles.