This is why I just don't buy that 'Corbyn changed politics'. He did his best, sure - but the movement didn't move anywhere, even under his watch.

It's strange, looking back, how much potential was wasted. And not just because of PLP sabotage either. All very sad.

On a related note: I've seen many tweets insisting that Corbyn *proved* Labour don't need donors' money.

Sorry, no he didn't. Because we lost: in general elections, European elections and local elections again and again and again. Despite the massive membership.
He certainly enthused and inspired many... but ultimately, not enough. And he was like Marmite to the wider electorate for all sorts of reasons: some legitimate, others a lot less so.
See also: Sanders. Enthused and inspired many, dragged the platform leftwards, not corporate funded in any way... and never close to winning.

How big is the Tory membership? It's a heck of a lot smaller than Labour's even now... yet look at their majority. Money still matters.
To be frank, Labour will always be the underdogs. Our entire history - which is embarrassingly bad electorally - demonstrates that.

So we have to think differently, act differently (Starmer falls down on both at present) and combine activism and Parliamentary politics together.
Unhappily, the reality of the latter is boring, staid, dull. But it won't be if we do what is blindingly obvious, and embrace a progressive anti-Tory alliance.

You want a way to inspire activists and force meaningful change? That's how you do it.
It remains astonishing to me that Corbyn never even considered electoral reform. In that sense, he was as trapped in the old, tribal, closed ways of thinking as anyone else.

It is equally astonishing that Starmer hasn't considered it either. Both represent betrayals of democracy
Time, then, to re-up two articles. One from 2015 - it's been blindingly obvious since then - and one from 2019. All progressives must unite... and this is the only way not just of doing it, but doing it excitingly and showing REAL vision and hope.

(1)

https://t.co/AtutUBLeXY
(2)

https://t.co/bOPEisdcr0
And just in case you missed it:

https://t.co/ovWsvdY5Ut
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris united:

- The young
- The old
- The left
- Ethnic minorities
- Suburban voters (especially women)
- Independents
- Professionals
- Centrists
- Conservatives
- White working class men
- 2016 third party voters
- 2016 non-voters

And look at the result.
The conclusion from how they won isn't - memo to Starmer - milquetoast centrism.

It's building a massively broad voting coalition spanning all the way from left to centre-right, encompassing unions, small businesses, workers and yes, bosses.
It's entirely possible to be bold but also realistic; to change the economic argument but do so in a credible, trustworthy way.

We'll see the economic and social impact of the 'centrist' Biden and Democratic Congress. I think it'll be significant. They have much to teach us.

More from Politics

What does "patriots in control" mean?
What would that "look like" in reality?


So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing


Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese


TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather


A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the

You May Also Like

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4. @DillikiBiili

Share for the benefit of everyone.

Here are the setups from @Pathik_Trader Sir first.

1. Open Drive (Intraday Setup explained)


Bactesting results of Open Drive


2. Two Price Action setups to get good long side trade for intraday.

1. PDC Acts as Support
2. PDH Acts as


Example of PDC/PDH Setup given
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".