Rumblings they might be actually going for the name 'Your Party'.

Thoughts on that name?

40 minutes ago, J00prstar said:

Rumblings they might be actually going for the name 'Your Party'.

Thoughts on that name?

It doesn't quite scan

35 minutes ago, J00prstar said:

Rumblings they might be actually going for the name 'Your Party'.

Thoughts on that name?

Labour campaigner on the doorstep: Who are you voting for?

Me: I'm voting for Your Party

Labour campaigner: Wonderful, thank you!

Who's on came first in Islington North? Your Party

For many reasons, no.

For The Many is a decent suggestion I've seen but a bit too long. I'd quite like something with People in the name to seize back populism from the right (People's Party in isolation sounds good, though as I suspected before looking it up, it is a name in part already seized by an obscure neo-Nazi party, though that one, the British People's Party, has been dead for 12 years).

I'm just glad Britain is one step closer to being a real European political nation.

11 hours ago, Rooney said:

I was aware Sultana was making a new for herself on the left, but wasn't sure she was going to pick up the mantle from Corbyn.

This Party is literally the Green Party and these characters thrive in this sort of environment, much like Reform do. Have all the solutions to the problems without having the nous to actually make them politically relevant. Look I know he's well liked my man on here, but Corbyn is an absolute clown. Still don't forgive him for being a terrible leader at the time of the Brexit vote and it was only fairly recently he said Ukraine should give up their weaponary! These people just can't help themselves from making politcial gaffes.

I do agree there is space for the left to rise up, but this current inclination is nothing more than a protest party which helps Reform imo.

You sound like Lord Mandelson himself there Roo - ‘there is space for a left wing voice, as long as they stay in their box’ 🙃

5 hours ago, Iz 🌟 said:

Labour campaigner on the doorstep: Who are you voting for?

Me: I'm voting for Your Party

Labour campaigner: Wonderful, thank you!

Who's on came first in Islington North? Your Party

For many reasons, no.

For The Many is a decent suggestion I've seen but a bit too long. I'd quite like something with People in the name to seize back populism from the right (People's Party in isolation sounds good, though as I suspected before looking it up, it is a name in part already seized by an obscure neo-Nazi party, though that one, the British People's Party, has been dead for 12 years).

I'm just glad Britain is one step closer to being a real European political nation.

A party with the name People in it reminds me too much of Germany circa 1920.

1 hour ago, Steve201 said:

You sound like Lord Mandelson himself there Roo - ‘there is space for a left wing voice, as long as they stay in their box’ 🙃

Not really, clearly left wing politics can be popular (look at Reform's economy). My issue as always with the people controlling the Party, is they thrive in a populism environment and love being a protest. Easy to sit on the sidelines and say things and we all know how much Corbyn thrives in the rally environment in front of his supporters. Just don't see how this cuts through to people and quite frankly, whoever is in charge of their branding is off to a terrible start with Your Party. Tells you all you need to know when we're gonna be sat on social media voting for what policies we want to enact.

No offence but from your posts in the forum to me it’s the party leaders that are an excuse for your opposition to the policies of social and economic equality and fairness espoused by those voices.

What does social and economic equality mean?

On paper I'm pro equality of opportunity and access to a certain standard of living but I'm not in favour of everybody getting EXACTLY the same regardless of their skills or contribution. What then is the point in anybody trying whatsoever?

11 hours ago, J00prstar said:

What does social and economic equality mean?

On paper I'm pro equality of opportunity and access to a certain standard of living but I'm not in favour of everybody getting EXACTLY the same regardless of their skills or contribution. What then is the point in anybody trying whatsoever?

I don't think anyone seriously advocates for equality of outcome. The problem is that equality of opportunity is not equal in most societies, everyone's initial economic situation, or racial/ethnic background, or gender, or LGBTQ expression if applicable, or personality, or health status, people don't have the same opportunities. Liberal and centrist parties tend to rationalise this with surface-level attempts to fix it, without tackling the underlying culture or preconceived biases that exist. They're also susceptible to pressure from the right to expel groups from their 'everyone's equal' mantra, like trans people or Palestinians, whose political existence becomes inconvenient for them to defend, which is the reason the left defends those two groups, not because they particularly will always be the main aim of the left's thrust but because the left recognises them as the thin end of the wedge and that they are recognised as easy targets for the right. The aim of popular front left parties is generally to cement a coalition of everyone no matter their background and work to correct economic inequalities through tax draw and therefore wealth redistribution (at which point everyone calls me a dirty commie), and correct social inequalities by enforcing equality laws and aid those whose qualities make it harder for them to fit in I suppose.

My vision to work towards as a left party would be reducing the inequality of both there in order that the laws it passes have society at large as the principal beneficiary. Rich people can still be rich, they are just using more of their money to ensure that they are enriching the most desperate to an acceptable standard. Rich people benefit from this too, no one enjoys a society with poverty.

8 hours ago, Iz 🌟 said:

I don't think anyone seriously advocates for equality of outcome. The problem is that equality of opportunity is not equal in most societies, everyone's initial economic situation, or racial/ethnic background, or gender, or LGBTQ expression if applicable, or personality, or health status, people don't have the same opportunities. Liberal and centrist parties tend to rationalise this with surface-level attempts to fix it, without tackling the underlying culture or preconceived biases that exist. They're also susceptible to pressure from the right to expel groups from their 'everyone's equal' mantra, like trans people or Palestinians, whose political existence becomes inconvenient for them to defend, which is the reason the left defends those two groups, not because they particularly will always be the main aim of the left's thrust but because the left recognises them as the thin end of the wedge and that they are recognised as easy targets for the right. The aim of popular front left parties is generally to cement a coalition of everyone no matter their background and work to correct economic inequalities through tax draw and therefore wealth redistribution (at which point everyone calls me a dirty commie), and correct social inequalities by enforcing equality laws and aid those whose qualities make it harder for them to fit in I suppose.

My vision to work towards as a left party would be reducing the inequality of both there in order that the laws it passes have society at large as the principal beneficiary. Rich people can still be rich, they are just using more of their money to ensure that they are enriching the most desperate to an acceptable standard. Rich people benefit from this too, no one enjoys a society with poverty.

That makes sense. I'm not sure where I stand on wealth redistribution, but I follow the logic of what you've said.

Looks like “The Left Party” will be the name… gah. They need something more inconspicuous & obvious imo. They may well be a left party, but it’s not going to be easy to get new people to your side who may be more center leaning etc..

People will see that name and won’t need to delve further. Whereas something a bit less obvious and people will research out of curiosity etc..

(Does that make sense lmao)

11 minutes ago, Tafty said:

Looks like “The Left Party” will be the name… gah. They need something more inconspicuous & obvious imo. They may well be a left party, but it’s not going to be easy to get new people to your side who may be more center leaning etc..

People will see that name and won’t need to delve further. Whereas something a bit less obvious and people will research out of curiosity etc..

(Does that make sense lmao)

It’s rather like the German Die Linke which grew from the East German Communist party. Still , I’m sure the right-wing press won’t make that link

'Left Outside' and 'Left out" were my first two thoughts re that name. Why not a snappier name like Reform or Momentum?

Remember the Labour Party was the Labour Representation committee for a fair few years before the current name became normal as the MPs wanted to distinguish themselves from the liberals at the start.