There’s always a relevant xkcd! But I didn’t suggest creating a new political party.

This article perfectly illustrates the crisis of representation when a ‘workers’ party’ becomes indistinguishable from the capitalist state. Labour isn’t losing support because voters are confused; they’re losing it because the material reality of austerity (cutting winter fuel and disability benefits) has exposed the party’s true function: managing capital, not protecting labour. Reform is filling the vacuum by channeling that legitimate class rage into nationalist scapegoating rather than challenging property relations. The takeaway isn’t that workers are ‘far-right,’ but that they’ve correctly identified Labour as an enemy of their class interests. Until the working class builds independent political power outside the Westminster duopoly and focusses on material demands over cultural distractions, this drift toward reactionary populism will only accelerate. We need to stop looking for saviors in parliament and start organising for ourselves.

Solidarity!

The implication that patient data is being “sent to Palantir” is misleading; the data remains in UK systems, but NHS England (not the wider UK-wide NHS) has granted Palantir contractors “unlimited” admin access to view raw, identifiable patient records directly. This creates a dangerous loophole where external US staff can bypass standard, granular privacy checks simply because obtaining individual permissions was deemed “too inconvenient.”

This is a fundamentally poor decision. Granting sweeping administrative privileges to a foreign intelligence-linked firm is a lazy shortcut that prioritises engineering ease over patient safety. By dismantling strict access controls to save time, NHS England has unnecessarily exposed millions of patients to risk, undermining the very principle of knowing exactly who accesses sensitive health data.

There’s an area of research producing “quantum ready encryption”, which uses algorithms that are believed to be secure against quantum attacks. There’s been no wholesale migration to this yet, and the protection remains hypothetical until the attacks actually happen.

Labour’s new policies sound good on paper (more public rail, greener energy, free childcare and a bigger NHS) but they still rely on the state to squeeze extra money out of workers through higher taxes. In practice, that extra cash ends up funding the same system that keeps private owners in charge, so the everyday worker sees only modest improvements while the underlying power balance stays the same.

In short, Labour is offering a series of “nice‑to‑have” fixes that ease some pressures on ordinary people, but they don’t challenge the deeper structure that lets a wealthy few control the economy. If they truly want a fairer society, they’ll need to go beyond incremental reforms and push for real public ownership and democratic control of key industries, not just more spending from the same tax pot.

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.

Indeed, and thank you, I will continue to watch this space!

I mean that you can’t subscribe unless you pay through Google Play or the App Store. So if one doesn’t use those because of privacy concerns, or other ethical concerns, then there’s no way to subscribe.

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.

A shame they haven’t figured out a way to subscribe for those opting out of the Google/Apple ecosystems, but I will watch this space!