UKPolitics on Marti Abernathey

The Greens are the Only Anti-Establishment Party

Tue, 14 Jul 2026 16:15:48 +0100

The Green Party is increasingly seen as the only viable alternative to the establishment parties in today’s political landscape. From the Canary: "Polling shows public see the Green Party as the anti-establishment party”.

Polling indicates that more voters perceive the Greens as a genuine option for those disillusioned with traditional political structures. This perception holds significant weight, especially when considering that many members of the Reform Party are former Conservatives. They had their chance to effect change but chose to uphold the status quo instead.

Reform’s current strategy is to pretend it’s anti-establishment, but it’s crucial to recognize that it isn’t. In almost every policy, it embodies the establishment views. The few policies where they DO differ from the esbablishment, it’s to the deteriment of the country. Immigration is mostly a net positive.

Cognitive biases run deep, as evidenced by Reform supporters dismissing large donations—such as the £5 million from cryptocurrency investors to Nigel Farage—while insisting he isn’t part of the corrupt establishment. This blind loyalty resembles a sports team mentality, where personal allegiance outweighs critical analysis. In contrast, the Green Party stands out by genuinely advocating for transformative change. Regardless of whether one believes in their approach, they are the only party actively proposing a path forward that deviates from entrenched political norms.

The parallels between Reform’s strategy with Donald Trump’s promises are striking; he vowed to transform lives but ultimately fell short, focusing on scapegoating marginalized groups like immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community rather than proposing substantial solutions. The Reform Party is positioning itself as anti-establishment while fundamentally supporting the very policies that maintain existing power dynamics. There’s nothing anti-establishment about them.

#GreenParty #PoliticalChange #StatusQuo #ReformParty #EstablishmentPolitics

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 18:32:00 +0100

The Reform Party is similar to Labour, in that they are big on generalisations of policy (or just ignoring their manifesto). They have no answers, just rhetoric.

The Death of the Open Internet in the Upside Down

Sun, 07 Sep 2025 09:46:48 +0100

I posted yesterday about Bluesky suspending #transgender authors. This type of nonsense will continue as long as people insist on algorithm based, centralized (no, Bluesky isn’t decentralised) social media. I feel like a grumpy old person (mostly because I am), but it’s pretty obvious where things are going. The government is shutting down every avenue of social media that doesn’t toe the line in terms of government policy (under the guise of “saving the children”). Supporting direct action is now illegal, but the state is supporting a genocidal religious ethnostate isn’t. Inciting violence is now called free speech, while advocating for peace is called terrorism.

Alice Thomson on Class and Society

Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:55:41 +0100

After the shooting of United Health's CEO, this image has gone viral. Like most people, I saw it, and laughed and moved on. But after seeing a remix today of it, and I was curious about what the underlying context of it was. Alice Thomson is a journalist, as is her husband. A quick google search reveals the journalist's squalid living conditions:

_{"Chevithorne Barton" was taken by Alison Day and licensed to use under Creative Commons license CC BY-ND 2.0}

Thomson lives in this run down shack (featured in House and Garden) with Edward FitzGerald Heathcoat Amory (of the Baron Heathcoat Amory clan). Thomson explains why hardy, down home folk like themselves are concerned with the coming class war:

Voters appear to have had enough of distractions and division; the majority, I suspect, just want a pragmatic government that’s going to get on with the job of sorting out education, the NHS, transport and social care rather than stoke any more discord. Most say they hope for a more equal society, but they espouse meritocracy and aspiration rather than Jeremy Corbyn’s politics of envy and redistribution.

Labour needs to be clear about its motivation. Its policy of putting VAT on private school fees may be a practical measure to find more money for the state sector but they shouldn’t be doing it if it’s also about punishing the rich.

The Rise of Far-Right Leaders in Western Democracies: British Politics is Driving me Crazy Edition

Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:26:13 +0100

Hi, my name is Marti Abernathey and I’m an American that’s settled in the UK. I’m happy here, but lately British politics and the thinking around it from the general public is gas-lighting me. From Davie Moo’s TikTok:

@daviemoo
Replying to [@Glen](https://micro.blog/Glen) Forde #fyp #foryou
♬ Cool modern chill out, 10 minutes(1001927) – 8.864

Did anyone else notice political shifts to the right around the world? Am I the only one seeing this? Donald Trump, a far-right populist, took the White House. The AfD, a far-right populist party, is strengthening in Germany. Le Pen’s National Front, a far-right populist party, is growing in France. In Canada, Justin Trudeau just barely escaped a no-confidence vote. Yet, he is way behind in the polls to Conservative, far-right populist Pierre Poilievre. There’s already far-right populist Giorgia Meloni in power in Italy.

And yet, the UK Labour Party can’t seem to see the writing on the wall. I wrote about this after the US election in November. A month out from that post:

and Starmer’s approval rating is plummeting:

If you dig into the polling from More in Common, it’s even worse than it looks.

More Britons prefer the last government than the current one

30% of the public think it would be better now if the Conservatives had won the election, compared to 24% who

think it would have been worse and 25% who think it would be the same.

Britons are also now more likely to say they prefer the previous government (34%) than the current one (31%)

and:

Labour have not convinced the public they represent something different
● The public are more likely to say sleaze and corruption has stayed the same (36%) or got worse (33%) than got better (17%) since the change of government.
● And the government is still not seen to have a clear direction – the public are more likely to think Labour does not have a plan for what they intend
to achieve in government (44%), than that they do (32%).

If this downward slide continues, Labour’s unpopularity will increase significantly. The swing will be strong. It will influence the electorate’s choice. They will choose leaders like Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage for the prime ministership. Like the Democrats in the United States, Labour will rely solely on the ‘don’t vote for the fascists’ rhetoric. Much like in the States, that rhetoric will fail. Not because it’s untrue, but because they stood by and did nothing except point.

Neo-liberalism has been dying for a long while now, and this is a sign of that death. Labour could revitalize the UK economy. This can be achieved with a dose of adrenaline through bold progressive policies in the coming years. Alternatively, it can do nothing and watch the UK descend into fascism.

The Labour Party's Unseen Influence on Trump's Win

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:01:07 +0100

I haven’t seen too many people talk about one angle of the Donald Trump win. They did awfully after getting advice from the Labour Party. You can never tell how much advice they actually listened to Labour advisors like Jonathan Ashworth, but the advice he gave publicly:

He said Democratic operatives were “interested in how we made the arguments [on border security], because they intend to make the same arguments as well.”

“We kept reminding people that he was a hard guy who put people behind bars and foiled terrorist plots,” Ashworth said of Starmer, who — like Harris — is a former prosecutor.

“[Harris], like Keir, is relentlessly pushing this message that she’s a prosecutor who has put criminals behind bars.” – Kamala Harris campaign told how to win by UK Labour strategist

“It’s my job to think through how Labour win a historic second term at the next general election. That’s why I want to learn from campaigns across the world and will be traveling regularly meeting our sister parties fighting elections over the coming years.” – Labour MPs to meet President Joe Biden as team flies to US with advice for Kamala Harris

Ashworth warned his U.S. comrades to develop solid responses on transgender issues, after Labour colleagues faced repeated media questions about whether women can have penises.

“One of the things I was raising in Chicago was how that would become an issue if they weren’t careful,” Ashworth said. – Trump allies rage at UK Labour help for Kamala Harris. There’s more to come.

seemed to fall flat.

Politics is a funny thing. Former MP Jonathan Ashworth lost in his seat in the House of Commons in July’s general election. After the election, he failed upwards to run the Labour think tank, Labour Together. Can a seat in the House of Lords be next?

Ashworth (and friends) gave the advice above to Democrats, and the Harris campaign followed it. It worked out badly. Whether it’s immigration, or trans rights, Democrats did not rally the base, and it couldn’t bring in new voters either. That advice sunk like a rock, it wasn’t good political strategy.

To think Ashworth and Co. are geniuses of the political dark arts is to ignore the historical context of July’s General Election in the UK. The election wasn’t won through strategy, but by the luck of good timing. Politics often relies on the context of the time you’re living in. People who take advantage of the situation and are politically savvy can succeed. Still, Starmer’s strategists have shown they don’t know much.

Keir Starmer won election as leader on lies and that’s continued in government. They’re increasing tuition for students. They’re getting rid of the £2 cap on bus fare. They’re cutting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. They could bring children out of poverty, but have chosen not to. They’re not doing anything that’s going to materially change people’s actual conditions on the ground. In fact, when polled over half believe Labour will make poverty worse. Yesterday a poll was released showing that the Tories are now leading Labour.

The electorate wasn’t excited about Starmer or Labour’s manifesto. What they were excited about was not having having the Conservative party in government. People’s standard of living is declining, but no one in government is taking action to deal with it. Conservatives were all responsible for that. Labour has no policy positions on the table that will materially change the lives of anyone but the super-rich. They continue to fiddle around the corners of the economy, but they won’t do anything to materially change it.

Many think discussions of wealth distribution like it’s a communist or socialist idea. However, wealth distribution is happening right now, even under Labour. The wealth is going to the top, not the bottom. The most recent bout of inflation wasn’t because of an increase wages, but because of profits.

The rise in inflation has not been driven by anything that looks like an overheating labor market—instead it has been driven by higher corporate profit margins and supply-chain bottlenecks. – Corporate profits have contributed disproportionately to inflation. How should policymakers respond?

Democrats lost in large part because they had power and didn’t do anything. Labour is heading down that same path. We are caught in the cycles of elections between two parties neoliberal parties. They are perceived as the only ones that have a real chance of winning. As a result, the only policies you get are neoliberal policies. They don’t make any changes. They only widen the income inequality. The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. Then you have another election. The other party claims to be the party of the people. They promise to implement policies to “make America great again.” Still, they don’t actually have any policies. As Trump amusingly said “I have concepts of a plan.” It turns out the policies they put in place are just more of the same. Rinse and repeat.

We’re only four months into this Labour government and it’s become obvious that we’re on a runaway train to nowhere. I spoke in an earlier post about the four choices we have four choices:

Continue your current level of political engagement

Fix the party from within

Work really hard between now and the next midterm election to try to build third-party power

Try to build power outside the political system.

It’s becoming glaringly obvious that three and four are the only rational choices left. These parties exist only to be in power. This applies to both Democrats in the USA and Labour in the UK. They don’t have any answers that will bring any long-term change, that much is clear.

What Trump’s Election Tells Us About Global Politics

Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:10:00 +0100

I’m an American living in the UK, and my wife is Brazilian. in both the UK and in Brazil, I’m seeing people say they can’t believe that Trump won the election. This is an extremely myopic view.

Fourteen million voters picked the Reform party in the UK just a few months ago. Many Brazilians would vote for Jair Bolsonaro if they could (he’s been barred from running for political office until 2030). There are far right governments in power in the EU. These include Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and the Czech Republic. In Germany and France, far right parties are growing. This trend is also seen in other areas of the world.

This isn’t some anomaly that the United States happened into. It’s the failure of neoliberal policies over the past 54 years. There’s a growing wealth gap and it seems to get bigger every year. The response of politicians is to do some version of this meme:

Democrats were advised in this past election by Labour politicians like Jonathan Ashworth. The Labour Party that is cutting fuel allowances for pensioners. They refuse to lift children out of poverty. They are raising tuition fees while continuing to look after corporate interests. If they continue down this path of pain, they will face serious challenges. They will find themselves in a very similar position that the Democrats are in now.

If there’s no change in the wealth gap, people will vote this way even more. This isn’t something unique to the United States. If wealth inequality continues to widen, so will the rise of fascism.

The Dilemma at the Center of the UK Labour and USA's Democratic Party

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:47:04 +0100

I'm an American living in the UK for the last six years. When I lived in the United States, I was involved with Democratic politics on a state and national level. Reflecting on that experience has made me conclude that the Labour Party and the Democratic Party share many of the same traits.

In the USA, it's "vote blue no matter who", and in the UK, it's similar, "Anyone but the Tories". There's an undercurrent of thought that leftists can't win, so you should just support the most left party and try to move the party left. In real-time, that isn't the case. In Nevada, the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) won every seat in the Nevada Democratic Party's leadership positions. They did what their opposition in the leadership always told them to do, win elections. How did they react? They stripped the party of its financial resources and then quit. Here, you can read a complete takedown of the whole thing at the Intercept and their sister audio podcast version.

Labour has a similar version of this story. In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was elected to be the leader of the Labour party. In 2017, Labour outperformed expectations (winning more of the popular vote than Blair in 2005) and brought the Labour party just shy of gaining power. Teresa May called this election to coalesce power around her Brexit deal. The loss of seats for the Conservatives was enough to oust Teresa May as Prime Minister. They had to find a "magic money tree" to stay in power.

During Corbyn's rein as the leader, the Forde Report found that there were forces within the party itself that were attacking Corbyn:

"The factions ended up in a cycle of attack and counterattack, with each side assuming that the other was acting in bad faith (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not) and responding in kind."

That there were Trotskyist witch hunts:

"I was advised that the bellringing was conducted by the 'compliance' unit and represented the successful suspension or expulsion of a member – often surrounded by the description of such members as 'trots'".

and that there were factional, racist messaging by senior party staff:

"We find that the messages on the SMT [senior management team] WhatsApp reveal deplorably factional and insensitive, and at times discriminatory, attitudes expressed by many of the party's most senior staff. The substance of the quoted messages is concerning – and totally inappropriate from senior staff of a purportedly progressive political party"

These factions were DESPONDENT at the idea of a Corbyn-led party taking power:

"WhatsApp transcripts included in the original 2020 dossier analysed by the inquiry had suggested that some staffers became despondent as Labour climbed in the polls during the election campaign despite their efforts."

Looking at both political parties through the lens of recent history shows their moderate base operates both when in and out of power. They're only focused on holding on to the reigns of power (at all costs) while not changing much while in power.

Right now, POTUS Joe Biden, who campaigned on being able to work with Republicans, cannot get legislation through Congress that the Democratic Party controls. As Peter Daou points this out at Direct Left:

This is Joe Biden’s actual record:

NO minimum wage hike

NO serious student debt cancellation

NO effective pandemic strategy (more deaths than Trump)

NO medicare for all — or the promised public option

NO more Roe v. Wade

NO filibuster reform, just speeches

NO voting rights protection, just more speeches

NO court expansion, just a sham commission

NO end to racist policing

NO end to gun violence

NO end to deportations & abuse of asylum-seekers

NO end to cages for migrant children

NO end to brutalizing Afghanistan and Yemen

NO end to droning civilians without repercussions

NO end to huge military budgets (bigger than Trump’s)

NO end to arming and coddling oppressive regimes

NO meaningful climate action

NO end to oil drilling and fossil fuel subsidies

NO end to poverty, hunger, and homelessness

NO end to billionaires pocketing trillions

That’s just a partial list of Biden’s broken promises — and broken moral compass. Corporate Democrats like Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi have always relied on performative opposition and theatrics to pacify their supporters while preserving the status quo.

UK Labour is now leading in the polls (even though they said they'd be leading by 20 points-- and they aren't) and may win the next general election. That may sound great, but as Biden has shown, if you don't lead a party of change with ideas that you implement, you won't be able to get anything done and "nothing will fundamentally change."

Things might not be that bad if that was all that would happen. But the promise of "hope and change" and to "fundamentally transform" America by Barack Obama that didn't materialise led to the election of Donald Trump. This lack of political movement had consequences.

Saying that you "must vote blue, no matter who", if it were in the context of a personal relationship, would be considered gaslighting, DARVO-like abuse.

Performative opposition is the name of the game for both of these supposedly liberal political parties. They have nothing to offer except more of the same, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This kind of do-nothing politics will eventually lead to radical change or hyper-nationalist fascism, resulting in much innocent bloodshed.

James O'Brien on Jeremy Corbyn:

Sat, 05 Dec 2015 05:22:55 +0100

Listening to the podcast of the Thursday edition of LBC's James O'Brien's radio show, I was surprised that he'd admit that he might be wrong about The Labour Party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Previously, he'd said that Corbyn supporters were akin to people who “believed in faeries.” He's repeatedly said that Corbynites were not pragmatic that Corbyn isn't electable, and the end of the Labour Party was near if he wasn't put down.

Then came the Oldham West and Royton by-election on Thursday (December 3rd, 2015). Now O’Brien is starting to ask if all the media is wrong about Corbyn.

I doubt that the British public has had a change of heart since the national election in May. Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership mandate because people are looking for an opposition party. Corbyn voted against the Iraq War and he’s anti-austerity,

In the USA, many people support Bernie Sanders, for the same reason that many people in the UK support Corbyn. Blair/Brown’s “New Labour” party of the 00s moved the Party to a more centrist right corporatist party in the same way that “New Democrats” transformed the Democratic Party in the 90s in the USA.

It’s difficult to tell if this revolution in politics will be sustained or win elections in the coming years, but as per normal, the revolution will NOT be televised.

Why I'm Angry at Conservative, Corporate Media

Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:16:37 +0100

In a Twitter discussion with LBC radio presenter, Julia Hartley-Brewer asked me:

@Martiabernathey that's a LOT of money and a BIG %. What are you so angry about? — Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) October 29, 2014

I AM angry. I'm angry because corporate conservative media outlets are engaging in a propaganda war against the poor. She and her station posted this:

A single mum of 5 says she shouldn't be forced by benefits cap to leave Westminster to move to Milton Keynes. Agree? Call 0345 6060 973 @LBC — Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) October 29, 2014

and

A single mum of 5 was made homeless after resisting her Council’s attempt to move the family 50 miles away. Should they be allowed to stay? — LBC (@LBC) October 29, 2014

I posted a response, saying that I thought this was just an attack on the poor. She responded by saying:

@Martiabernathey so you think taxpayers should foot the bill for her £52,000 annual rent in Westminster?!!! — Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) October 29, 2014

Since her housing benefit is .0003% of the benefit budget, the problem isn't one of impact. In America we call this dog-whistle politics.

"Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."

"You should be outraged that lazy people are getting over on hard working people!" That's the dog-whistle that British conservative media are sounding. If you actually read the story, the woman has lived in the area for 5 years and the reason rent is so high is because the housing market changed around her, not some special deal she has received. This does anger me, because this kind of political propaganda has an agenda, and that agenda is to incite class division. It's done to mask real issues that matter, instead blaming the poor, immigrants, and the disabled. The most vulnerable people are blamed for the ills of Britian, but as I said in my previous post:

You can logically argue what banking practices caused the financial crisis in 2008 that still haunts the global economy, but you can’t say it wasn’t the fault of bankers.

The underlying push by conservative corporate media is that the economic collapse that happened in 2008 was due to immigrants, or the strain of the housing or employment benefit budget. I asked Hartley-Brewer what the percentage of the benefit budget housing is and she said:

@Martiabernathey as a % of working age benefits, housing benefit is actually huge. Around £20billion a year. — Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) October 29, 2014

But data from The Guardian will help put that amount into perspective: Around 20 billion? According to the Guardian data, it's more like £16 billion, but why quibble (if I was going to quibble, she still doesn't give a percentage)? By my crude math, that's about 12% of the total benefit budget. Pensions are about 44% (£74 billion) and paying interest on the debt is around £48 billion. If Julia is right, and the housing benefit is "huge", then you'd have call pensioner's pull on the economy as "gigantic" or "massive". With that being true, why doesn't Hartley-Brewer/LBC dedicate more time to pensions and debt reduction? I'm guessing they push immigration reform and benefit cuts for the same reason that UKIP pushes a false narrative about immigration. It might not be true, but it sure pushes buttons of angry, frustrated people. That in turn, brings listeners/voters. Talking about pensions and the strain they put on the budget would especially alienate (mostly older) conservative listeners/voters. Why do I care? Because the people who are the most vulnerable are used as scapegoats, while the rich and blameless continue to receive corporate "benefits"/"welfare".

Oligarchy lives.

That is why, Julia, I’m so pissed off.

update: (10/30 1800 GMT)

Because oligarchy media scapegoating has consequences:

Above is what British people think, verses what the reality actually is. Who is at fault? I’m looking at you, corporate, conservative media….

update November 09th, 2014:

Cost of benefit as a percentage of GDP:

Scroungers, Benefit Cuts, and the Tory Media

Tue, 28 Oct 2014 01:56:00 +0100

This morning I was listening to LBC radio and the radio presenter, John Stapleton (who was sitting in for James O’Brien), took a call from someone that said the Tories don’t care about benefit cuts and people in poverty: [soundcloud url=“https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/174327300” params=“auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=“100%” height=“450” iframe=“true” /] Stapleton called the caller “harsh,” then parroted the government line. I had a brief conversation with him on Twitter, of which there was little response. I’ve noticed that when callers hit pay dirt on talk radio, the presenters don’t like to talk about it.

You can logically argue what banking practices caused the financial crisis in 2008 that still haunts the global economy, but you can’t say it wasn’t the fault of bankers.

When I read Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of the United States of America”, I often wondered how people could be duped into supporting policies that actually suppressed them. I now understand how that can happen, because I’m seeing it happen globally today. In the United Kindgdom some will blame the floundering British economy on immigrants, some will blame the fiscal malaise on the NHS budget, but still others will blame the UK benefits system. The media willingly promotes this myth by producing shows like Benefits Street, that seek to build a narrative. But that narrative is simply fiction when applied to the majority of people claiming benefit. If you look at the benefits pie as a whole, a solid majority of it goes to pensioners. Do you see UKIP/Tories going after pensions/pensioners? If they really were concerned about the economy, they’d focus on the majority of the burden. But that wouldn’t win them any elections. Pinning immigrants against the poor, has always been a tool of the wealthy ruling class to keep the lower classes busy. This war is no different.

It’s hard to form policy around the actual data that shows the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, because that won’t fire many people up. It’s all rather glum. It’s a much easier task to blame those who can least defend themselves. The poor, disabled, and the disenfranchised don’t have friends in places of power to advocate on their behalf, but the rich do.

Apparently they also have their mouthpieces in the media, as well.

Update: Another example of this use of poor to forward an agenda: