Not to mention private landlords and affordable housing are opposite concepts. Even if it was knocked down to build a park bench factory. It would be a reduction in general housing not affordable.

That word was clearly used to try and scare uninformed readers.

Only if members select him. He is expected to run but has not actually confirmed it. Zarah Sultana has clearly indicated in an interview. That she intends to run. And would like the members to select her and JC as joint leaders. But it is entirely up to the membership.

Personally my choice ATM would be ZS as leader and JC as deputy.

I sorta want to. My health means I can end up in hospital and unavailable for weeks at a time.

So I’m waiting until locals take up the lead roles etc. Then will offer my spare time in less essential/leadership ways. I think even without health issues. Many may lack the confidence or free time to lead local groups. But be waiting to help out like myself.

Great. More housing on the market. Because you openly admit you do not care about your tenents.

With any luck enough landlords who only see properly as an investment opportunity. Will copy you. And the housing market will correct.

Unlikely though as it’s a global issue ATM. So many will invest even with tenants having some extra rights.

But for some reason it’s refusing to publish

The reason is pretty darn clear and well documented.

To ensure the overtaking of the party by workers and leadership. The way labour was. Is impossible.

Equality including trans is part of the proposed founding. The roadmap to that founding process was sent out to supporters yesterday. And is expected to be complete by mid Nov.

Official website and most of the forums openly opposed and ban anti trans members. I say most. I’ve not found any that don’t. Only a few vocal idiots complaining about bans on social media. But it’s the internet. I’m sure these sad trolls gather somewhere. Nothing official agrees with or tollerats them.

Your repeated failure to understand how important membership authority is to a huge % of left wing supporters. And the processes required to make that happen. In no way backs up your accusations. And so far you have nothing else to support your claims. Your single MP example is (as all are until local members vote). An independent MP expressing his personal views. Not a party representative in any way.

The founding proposal is clear. Only local party affiliations will have any right to appoint MPs. Leadership will not be allowed to parachute supporting MPs into constituencies as Labour and the Tories do.

Yet you use the very process and time nessesery to support that. As some form of evidence the party fails to stand up to your ideals. It fails provide the proof you think it dose.

I’m starting to realise how important sharing your understanding has become.

Seems many left of centre fail to recognise, just how important the democratic membership authority is. And are critical of how slow forming the party is because of it.

I’d guess it’s probable. Both greens leader and YourParty founders are up for it. But say it’s down to membership. Most YP supporters in the forums (IE those expected to join) seem very keen.

I’d guess it’s more a matter of the form of alliance rather than if.

I’m about as southern as you can get. Yet know about him. As far as I can tell. Pretty much anyone with more then minimal interest in politics would recognise his name. Certainly anyone within Labour as his name as come up for leadership a few times.

Technically. While it’s very much assumed. And has never happened in modern history.

That being an MP is required is very debatable. Parliamentary rules state must site in commons But that is not the same as representing a constituency. The siting rule relates more to it no longer allowing a member of lords. As it did historically.

Labour rules require the leader to be an MP. As dose the Conservatives. But parliament only assumes the PM will lead the party. It is not a requirement. Not to mention Labours leadership is very able to change rules when wanted.

It’s never happened and likely never will. But the only real rules are a PM must exist. They must have the confidence of parliament. And are required to sit/occupy parliament. Not having the right to vote would Def cause issues. But it’s fun to consider how messed up parliamentary rules Vs traditions etc can get.

Agreed. It’s making me uncomfortably hopeful/positive. After the last few years of negative politics.

If the membership numbers are even 1/3 of those who have signed up to support. It will be a very sizeable influence.

Have to also give huge credit to Zarah Sultana. As someone much older. I am impressed with how well she seems to inspire the younger left. Im likeing her attitude alot.

Well 2nd or 3rd. Need to open up the membership first. So folks can actually vote on it.

A membership portal and official founding of the party using YourParty will happen over the next 2 weeks. With draft founding docs.

Form there the foundation docs get discussed and voted on. Along with the name.

But all is only confirmed in November when the official membership vote happens.

Changing the party name is not that complex. process and documentation wise. It only becomes an issue once the party is well known by such.

But we have almost 4 years before any general election. So founding a real democratic party that dose not allow the leadership to override democratic rule is more important. Given the recent history of Labour.

Unfortunately the majority of Labour MPs still support the ideals and plans of the Blue Labour leader Starmer.

So a leadership challenge is not going to change anything. The labour right did to good a job of everything they suggested the left would do. Wipping out opposition.

A leadership change can only end up with another leader owned and run by the wealthy and opposed to any reequalizing of our economy.

As long as our government is opposed to accepting the inequality in our economy is the issue. Things for the not wealthy will only get worse. Giving the far right more opportunity to sell their false ideas. With 0 opposition.

Meanwhile the gap between economic growth going to the wealthy over the working class will continue to grow.

Rather then actually supporting workers. Blue Labour decides to use Reform as a threat to shut protest up.

Yep about as expected by this gov now.

How many protesters accused of supporting PA. Have actually been to court so far.

Honest question. As so for I’ve not seen any in the news. But may have missed a few.

I have seem the police and CPS release a lot soon after arrest. Makeing me wonder if the CPS is confident on the courts accepting the proscription.

I can see lawyers using both Starmers case during Blares government and ECHR free speech requirements to challenge the validity of the law.

PS you really do not want to go back to a time when Judges acted on their own political motives.

That opens up the court system to a fuck more injustice then it dose justice. We already see way to much prejudicial sentencing and interpretation of evidence. Historical claims womens dressed in a way that encouraged rape. Current Valuing of policemans statements over non police and racial prejudice is valuation of evidence.

Start adding an expectation for judges to judge the moral validity of laws. And it is very unlikely to go in a positive direction.

Just to be clear.

Court do not make laws. Parliament dose. At best they interpret laws. And even then only when questionable interpretation or contradictory laws exist.

Parliament created the laws. The met enforced them. CPS decide if they go to court. From there only a jury has any nullification rights. Judges etc are required to rule based on the multiple laws created.

A agree the phrasing is intentional. I think we both agree they are lying scum.

But the meanings of the word concluded is pretty darn clear. As is the meaning of not.

As I say my written grammar (and spelling) may be poor. But my language comprehension is pretty fucking good.

PS I’m good with the meaning of words. But crap with grammar. So would never question your use of grammar.

If the Judge or jury has cot come to a conclusion. It is illegal for them or any other representative of the court to process the accused as if guilty.

You really are failing to make your case.

The gov is intentionally using the term because it dose not claim anything about the case. Only there lack of response.

We do not disagree the gov is responsible.

We just disagree on your interpretation of their use of language. Them saying they have not concluded the actions have happened. Is them claiming the evidence is not convincing to them.

In your court example they are “claiming” they did not have strong enough evidence to convict.

I in no way disagree that in that example Judge Starmer and all the Protection Lawyers are currupt as hell.

I just point out that your statement that not having concluded they are guilty. In no way indicates they are required to act. You need to provide proof they do consider Israel guilty to make that claim.

Except they have not come to the judgement that Israel is committing genacide. Literally means they are claiming they have no evidence.

It’s a bull shit claim politically.

But English language wise. Failing to conclude the actions of a 3rd party meet certain standards. Very much indicates that processes requiring those standards are not required.

I in no way agree with the gov on this.

But. How are you interpreting the word concluded.

Lemmy will be using to arrive at a judgement or opinion.