Again, I find myself having to explain sentences to you. He has nothing to say ‘in this context, about this thing, which is the subject of our discussion’ is not the kind of clarification I should have to append to my every utterance, I feel.

The whole premise of our discussion is whether or not he is planning to co-lead a party with other politicians who oppose the Israel lobby! So, no! Manifestly not!

Cheers. Obviously there’s a case to be made that some people really are globalists (as in, they believe in globalisation) but there are… connotations.

With my mod hat on: Can we be careful with conspiracy-adjacent language like globalists, please.

It depends how much it ends up involving the pro-Palestine independent MPs, I think.

Again, the case is the exact opposite of the one you’re making. ‘When he starts assembling a new party he knows the news will leak’ - so why did he not have a clear statement ready? Because he has nothing to say. He’s ‘playing open card’ but he’s incapable of even saying who is putting the party together, or confirming if he’s in some sort of leadeship role. Why? Because he has nothing to say.

Frankly, I think Sultana knows that waiting for Corbyn to commit to anything will take forever. She was probably trying to bounce him into taking an actual position and, as most people have found, he just doesn’t want to. Good for her for trying something big but, for her sake, I hope this shows her it’s time to move on from the guy.

You have got to stop putting this dim, narcissistic man on a pedestal and taking your fanfic about him as reality. The reason he has said nothing concrete is that he has nothing to say.

Again, I’m struggling here, because as in our previous discussions, you don’t seem to be replying to the words I’ve written. I said: ‘Corbyn is not co-leader’, and you reply, ‘Where does it say [Sultana] is not co-leader?’

As often with supporters of Corbyn, I find your willingness to read whatever you want into his sayings a source of frustration. If he is co-leading this new foundation, or party, or whatever it is, why did he not just say so? Why use the passive voice? I suspect the reason he writes these convoluted non-statements - who is ‘us’? What is a ‘new kind’ of party? Who is shaping it? Amongst whom are discussions ongoing? - is precisely to avoid anyone pinning him down to anything concrete.

Yeah, they did what a lot of the LTNs did elsewhere, which was to rebrand but keep the policies the same. Our car culture remains ridiculous but we’re moving against it every day!

I love Voyager, but of all Treks it’s the hardest to make a move of. Their whole thing was to get home and… they did! You can’t have ‘We need to reunite the old gang to get home from the Delta Quadrant one last time’.

Funnily enough, I was also thinking of Oxford! Huge noise about it, but what happened? Pro-environment politicians re-elected, anti completely smashed!

This man’s almost total lack of people skills is incredible to me.

It’s a myth that people dislike 15 minute cities. If you look at election results, all the places that have put LTNs and similar in place have re-elected the politicians who pushed for them.

Absolutely!

Fair enough. I look forward to aggressively agreeing with you again in the future.

No, because there’s no conflict between being rational and radically leftwing. Quite the opposite, I would argue! We have unprecedented crises to deal with, and the correct (rational) response to an unprecedented crisis may well be radical.

‘Hello, I’m a left wing person. We have lots of social and economic problems and actual crises, and we need radical action to fix them, in the form of left wing politics. My key dispute with the current Labour party is that its policies are insufficient to fix the problems and what I mean by that, specifically, is that they’re neither radical enough nor left wing enough’.

^This bit, I’m on board with. This bit is basically me, give or take an Ed Miliband here and there.

‘… and that’s why I’m going to spend a lot of time getting offended if people on the internet refer to me, the politicians I like or, indeed, the radical, left wing action I’m proposing as “radical left”’.

^This bit I am baffled by.

They do address energy storage in the full plan e.g.:

• The Government is therefore committed to a fundamental and urgent reform of the connections process, as set out in the Clean Power Action Plan. The Plan included connections capacity allocations for onshore wind for 2030 and 2035
• The Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP) will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure […]. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage, including onshore wind, to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need

Exactly the sort of arrant nonsense I expect from GCs. I can’t see this case succeeding.

The issue is not that you don’t understand the arguments but that you don’t appear to understand the sentences! Respectfully, I think you can probably understand why I’m not interested in reading my comments back to you, which is what the discussion would entail at this point.

UPDATE:

Well, they lost the appeal and from midnight it will be illegal to be a member. Maximum sentence 14 years in prison, so I strongly suggest you don’t choose this moment to join.