Thank you for the extra context, that’s useful to form a better rounded opinion on the situation.

This was apparently an unapproved unilateral action: https://reddthat.com/post/50303806

The paid‑for “membership portal” appears not to be a democratically ratified decision but a unilateral move by Zarah Sultana, imposed on a movement that promised collective ownership of its direction. By turning entry into a £5‑a‑month subscription, the party treated political belonging as a commodity, reproducing the market logic it claims to oppose and alienating volunteers who expect free, universal access to a socialist organisation. This top‑down imposition sidestepped the pre‑figurative principle of participatory decision‑making and reinforced a Westminster‑style habit of fundraising through mandatory fees rather than genuine solidarity.

A more socialist approach would replace the subscription with a voluntary‑donation model built on transparency and collective control: open‑ended contributions, tiered solidarity pledges tied to specific grassroots projects, and worker‑run funding circles that let supporters decide how money is allocated. By treating money as a means of sustaining collective activity, not as a gate‑keeping ticket, the party could align its finances with democratic planning, reinforce accountability, and turn fundraising itself into a concrete expression of socialist solidarity.

Asylum claims are, of course, heavily driven by world events. They’re also seasonal in some cases, with drops in claims during the colder and wetter months (where that’s a relevant concern).

Zack Polanski’s bold trek into Nigel Farage’s Clacton constituency put Freire’s dialogic praxis into play: the Green leader swapped the usual top‑down campaign for a street‑level conversation, asking voters about zero‑hour contracts, fire‑and‑rehire and housing while exposing Reform’s support for those very policies. By treating locals as co‑authors of the critique, he momentarily flattened the power hierarchy and offered an “alternative story” that challenges a looming far‑right‑adjacent government. Yet the visit remains a powerful first step, not a full‑cycle praxis; without sustained dialogue, policy co‑creation and iterative reflection the gesture stays symbolic, though it undeniably signals that the Greens are ready to contest the dominant narrative and give ordinary Britons a louder voice in the national debate.

Whether the badge wears a Labour label or a Conservative one, it’s still the same state instrument protecting private property and keeping the working class in check. The uniform may change, but the class interest it serves doesn’t.

I think Labour often forget their namesake and their roots in the trade union movement and socialist parties. They dilly-dally - or just fail to deliver - on bold action that would do well for a broader cause because of a selfish desire to govern alone. Introduce PR. Reform the Lords. Introduce a federal system to address the problem of an “English Parliament”. Tax the rich. Introduce UBI. All of these ideas exist, or have existed, in the Labour party, and could make such a massive difference to the lot of the many now and in the future.