53
Labour Party members just defected to Your Party en masse (www.thecanary.co)
submitted 15 hours ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Labour Party members have signed a mass resignation letter, calling out Starmer's rightward direction, with the majority joining Your Party

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

I want to take this opportunity to say that Starmer's face looks like he is put on the spotlight, confused and doesn't know what to do, his eyes jolting, jerking and looking around listless with his head, until he confides to you and asks sheepishly: "what do you suppose have me do?"

Yeah, that explains a lot; aside from being in the pocket of the rich and copying the American Democrat mindset of "wE hAvE tO cApTuRe tHe MoDeRaTeS" (which is a code for don't anatagonise their rich donors and NIMBYs). The moderate unicorns that neoliberals are trying chase have galloped away long ago. They were called the middle class of the 1990s and 2000s, and now the term middle class itself is questionable at best since the financial crisis. People want more public investment, not austerity.

[-] MrNesser@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago

Any MPs?

No

Means fuck all then

[-] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 1 points 29 minutes ago

Your Party cannot have MPs yet.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 hours ago

If the conservative members were leaving the conservatives sure it wouldn't really mean much. And of course they actually are leaving, but Kemi isn't improving.

But labour are their members, labour members run everything because labour doesn't have a 1922 committee equivalent. So if enough members leave, particularly if they do it en mass, yeah it's a problem.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 4 hours ago

As MPs they would be independents. Not your party members.

That is part of the point of your party. The leadership. when members vote one in. Cannot select MP. So they can only move with constituency your party member support.

So no until the party is fully set up. Supporting your party is all MPs can do.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Might mean a lot come voting time.

[-] rjek@feddit.uk 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Reminder that The Canary is run by frothy-mouthed moaners who spin everything negatively unless personally blessed by Corbyn. It is not balanced, fair, or independent reporting. It's clearly also nonsense, as "en masse" implies the entire group previously described, and I'm pretty sure a) the Labour Party still has members, b) Your Party can't even decide how it is you become a member.

A much better, less sensationalist article is the one they link to: https://walthamforestecho.co.uk/2025/09/30/21-leyton-and-wanstead-labour-party-members-resign-over-right-wing-drift/

[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Neither is any media balanced these days. Mass media is effectively kneeling before Nigel Farage like he's had a crown on his head.

I say let The Canary do it. Might balance things out.

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 19 points 14 hours ago

It is not balanced, fair, or independent reporting.

  1. They don't claim to be balanced. Quite the opposite. They are very open about their beliefs. https://www.thecanary.co/about
  2. Define what you mean by fair? Bothsidesing is the worst thing you can do as a news site. I'm happy that they are not trying to find the middle ground between fascism and socialism in their coverage.
  3. As far as I know they are ad and reader funded without taking corporate or lobbyist money.
[-] ashughes@feddit.uk 1 points 53 minutes ago

Bothsidesing whereby an organisation presents propaganda from the left and the right as equally factual to construct a straw man of a middle ground as truth is definitely bad, as is presenting one side’s propaganda as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I expect any legitimate news outlet to inform the public of the nuance on a given topic because it is within the nuance where the truth often lies. It is then helpful and informative to present how “both sides” are trying to frame that topic by excluding the nuance, thereby obscuring the truth. Journalism as a public service is there to inform me about what is happening in depth and in a debiased manner so I can think critically about it (if the UK has any news outlets that meet this standard, that’s news to me). Painting real, hard journalism as “bothsidesing” only serves to destroy the concept of nuance, which is just about the only thing both sides can agree on: destroy the middle ground and they’ll be able to keep us pawns fighting forever.

You may think having a Nigel Farage or Fox News for the left brings balance but it doesn’t. It only serves to keep us fighting each other rather than fighting the status quo. If you’re reading the Canary solely for entertainment and are able to consistently view it as such then fair enough I guess, just don’t call it news.

To be clear, I am not claiming that you personally are participating in any of the above, just calling out a general worrying trend I am witnessing in our discourse.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Jumping in here, they’re fond of distorting the facts to make better outrage bait. They still take every opportunity to claim Palestine Action were targeting planes that were refuelling Israeli jets, the problem with that being the British refuelling system is incompatible with the one Israel uses.

Take an angle, sure. But don’t lie to do so.

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

They still take every opportunity to claim Palestine Action were targeting planes that were refuelling Israeli jets <...>

As far as I can see they never said that. They just quoted Palestine Action saying that. https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/06/20/breaking-palestine-action-break-into-raf-brize-norton-and-escape-undetected/

And the later article https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/09/doha-raf-refuelling-plane/ said that about F35 which can be refueled by Airbus KC3 Voyager.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -1 points 7 hours ago

Israeli F35s can’t be refuelled by British tankers. They use a completely different system. If the Canary had fact-checked, they’d have realised the British tankers circling Doha were highly unlikely to be party to the Israeli attack on Qatar, as they were in fact participating in a joint exercise with… erm, Qatar.

It’s a pity, because they cover some stuff others don’t.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

They're also very happy to just straight up lie or spread conspiracy theories, which I find frustrating.

Even if they cracked a good story, I'd have no idea whether it's true or not, because they've shown themselves to basically be The Express but for Corbyn's most faithful following.

[-] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago

I read them from time to time. Can you give an example of where they "straight up lie or spread conspiracy theories"? They report on rumours or gossip - but that's little different than a mainstream journalist citing "sources". I take into account their political slant when I read them, though.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
53 points (93.4% liked)

United Kingdom

5431 readers
322 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.

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
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net