The prospect of this new party has given a lot people hope and it shouldn’t be allowed to fail before it has properly begun.
Vibes are massively off with Corbyn. Have been for a while. When the right party comes along they won’t be divided even before they begin and they won’t have to beg for my signature. They’ll be smart, united and I’ll be eager to support them.
I’ve read the letter. I’m not clear about the scenario this is addressing, where the party fails before it has begun. Is there some disagreement about the direction of the party and therefore an alternative proposal somewhere?
Yes, there seems to be an internal split among the MPs.
Hopefully they sort things out. It’s not a good look for potential leadership if they can’t.
I’m not signing the letter, but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested or invested in the outcome. I’ll see how things shape up and wait for some communication from a unified party.
What does this party offer that the greens do not? But I would take either option over what we have now.
Z Sultana has already posted she supports this move. So we are now waiting for J Corbyn and team to respond.
It is by far the best chance of anything moving forward. As both founders sides seem to only be offering court threats alone.
We sure Zarah is not behind this? Do we know who is? What their background is?
Taking the power away from MPs (JC and the other 5) was something she was quite keen on.
I’m behind JC on this. It’s important to get structures and rules right. This needs experience. We have to ensure that what happens to Labour doesn’t happen to Your Party. We have to remember Keir and Tom Watson win democratically and it was not good for democracy. Getting unions embedded and fair balances that cannot easily be changed (like the 20% MPs needed for candidates). These came from the NEC, a somewhat elected structure.
There is no point being a movement that can be highjacked and we have to be careful at whoever is grasping at power.
Open Selection needs to be baked in as policy etc.
We know ZS is not behind it. Just supporting. Names have been published.
The important thing to note. Every element of the plan requires every meeting to be documented.
Names who created it or signed it? I cannot see who created the text, just recent signatures.
How do you know? What background is behind it?
Meetings being documented is a good thing. Still need to know more of the origins of this. I’m not in xitter/BSky, so how do I find this?
If you read the plan. You will note it dose not matter.
First yes the names have been published. But as none of us know them very well that means nothing.
The process commited to is much more important. And that process involves those names being removed from control as the end step. Running a membership drive being the only thing they will be authed to do. As soon as that drive is active. A new collection of stewards is to be elected. (Using STV)
Whos only task is to continue the membership drive. And organise the conference and leadership election.
Honestly read the proposal.
