It is probably no bad thing that health struggles have delayed my writing up Your Party’s extraordinary Liverpool founding conference. Perspective is definitely helpful to process something unique.
Personally, I could not help but be struck by the number of participants who approached me as regular readers of my blog, certainly well into three figures. I did scores of selfies and even signed several booklets. The very large majority of these – and you may be among them – were very enthusiastic about the experience of the conference.
They loved the feeling of a new beginning, of taking the fight to Blue Labour and Reform, of openly espousing socialist principles and policies. They enjoyed the more heated debates over party structures as evidence of functioning and lively democracy. They were uplifted by the speeches of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, by Shockat Adam and Ayoub Khan, and by the guest speakers from European left parties.
I felt some of this myself. The speeches were indeed uplifting, and the heated arguments were the bit I enjoyed the most, where it felt that the opinion of members mattered.
But all of that was to ignore the undercurrent of extreme factional infighting that had dogged the formation of the party, and resulted in only 45,000 joining out of the 850,000 who had signed up to register their interest.
I am not going to rehearse the history of conflict and infuriating dispute between Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn that led up to the conference. But the continuation of this into the founding conference itself was a petulant betrayal of the good people who are working to put together a new Left party.
That Sultana and Corbyn could not find it in themselves to just stand side by side on the stage together, smile and wave for five minutes for the photographers is pathetic. The power play on the eve of conference to expel members of the Socialist Workers Party, Counterfire and other socialist groups, in such a way that many did not find out until they were in Liverpool, was extraordinary.
This is what happened. Broadly speaking the organisation of the party has been in the hands of factions broadly aligned to Jeremy Corbyn. The founding draft documents state that the Alliance MPs are the steering committee of the party. There has so far been no democratic input from members in control of the party.
While the conference was to adopt a constitution setting out a new Central Executive Committee and its election, there was no provision for any interim democratic input until that executive is elected – probably five months from Conference. A number of left wing groups were therefore planning to propose that the conference itself should elect a temporary steering committee, to run the party until the executive elections.
The last minute expulsions were a reaction against those who were believed to be leading the plan to elect a temporary committee from the conference. Other measures were also put into effect to stop it – for example it was imposed that no points of order could be made from the floor, that no motions or amendments could be expressed from the floor, and burly security men were brought in to impose this “order” on the hall.
Now I should make plain all of this bothers me. I did not know of any plan, but I would have voted that conference should elect an interim committee. I deeply dislike the way that decisions are being made with nobody knowing who makes them, and on what authority.
The prime example of this is the decision to expel people. Nobody seems able to say who made this decision, and on what authority. To be plain, it was not only members of the SWP affected. Three friends of mine have been expelled, for reasons I simply cannot fathom.
Similarly, it is impossible to know who selected what could be debated by conference. There were indeed heated debates – but the agenda was set and the wording decided by invisible and unnamed people, drawing on divided up “Assemblies” which were always designed to produce no clear democratic outcome.
So, for example, the proposal that MPs should receive a workers’ wage and give the rest of their salary to the party was not chosen for debate, despite being the most popular in the online poll.
The leadership suffered a hefty defeat over dual party membership, with members voting strongly in favour. The one man one vote system of online voting for all members that was used, I strongly support. But the dual party membership debate is a precise example of the abuse of control of the agenda.
The two options were both drafted by the leadership which opposed dual party membership, and you were given two choices. The first choice was no dual party membership. The second choice was dual party membership, but only with a list of parties to be decided by the Central Executive Committee and agreed by Conference.
As there is no such list yet, and indeed no executive committee yet, all those expelled who come from the SWP and other organisations, remain expelled at least until Conference in Autumn 2026. This was against the strong sentiment of the Conference.
So I could not shake off the awareness of all this counter-productive machination and could not enjoy the conference. I find all this distasteful, and highly reminiscent of the worst behaviours of the Labour Party. I have to state I left Liverpool with a lower opinion of both Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana than I turned up with.
We had one informal and one more formal meeting of the Scottish delegates, and that was indeed more unified and more hopeful. There will be a Scottish Conference in Dundee in February 2026.
There are two central questions for the Scottish conference – will Your Party Scotland be fully autonomous, and will it support Scottish Independence? Just for me personally, those are fundamental questions governing my membership of this new entity. My feeling is they will be resolved in the positive. But they are not by any means the only questions for me.
I will I think be much happier if these issues of power and control get resolved and we finally get to talk about policy. I was never likely to enjoy a conference where sessions are called “constitution” and “standing orders”.
The problems of the party are self-reinforcing. The failure of the mass membership to materialise means that small groups of already dedicated political activists on the left have disproportionate influence within the party at present. I see and understand the problem the leadership is trying to counter – but you can’t suppress democracy because you don’t like the membership.
It is absolutely essential that a party arises to the left of Labour – there is a huge space there – and opposes both neoliberal economics and Imperialist foreign policy, while openly countering racism. I therefore really want Your Party to succeed. I also want it to support the dismantlement of the irredeemably imperialist UK state.
I think there is still hope Your Party will fulfil these roles. I shall continue to work for that. There are a great many good people in Your Party. In a time of dizzying change and fragmentation in British politics, we have to do what seems right at this moment.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Already, Your Party is the object of ridicule on Have I got News for You.
and everywhere else if you hadn’t noticed. Owen Jones described the conference as a ‘clusterf*ck’ and that’s without discussion of the (alleged) financial irregularities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvqk22epyo
if you hadn;t noticed Owen Jones is a longstanding labour party activist of (careerist, self-serving grifter) sorts.
How so; he describes himself as a left winger…
Nick B, you’ve obviously not read OJ for at least the last couple of years if you genuinely believe that characterisation of him.
Isn’t ridiculing politicians (of every stripe) essentially the point of HIGNFY, Cynicus?
Didn’t do BoJo the Clown any harm.
What with the “smoke-filled rooms” and the factional infighting, what appears to have emerged with Your Party is the stereotypical caricature of the left, as so aptly portrayed in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”.
Yes, B, that L.O.B caricature has loomed over YP pretty much from the start; even if has become something of a cliche to use it to ridicule any Left Wing political entity. Noticeable that the Right never seems to attract the same dismissive scorn, despite ” it ” having been in Government more than it’s – alleged – opposite number, therefore having presided over and been responsible for the precipitous decline in UK Politics and Social Fabric, up to and including – in it’s present New Labour incarnation – the current nightmare cartoon that passes for governance, ie Dr Strangelove meets Krusty The Clown in Euro- Disneyland, become besotted with each other and decide to ” start a family “: to which end they hire the – hitherto barren – womb of Victoria Nuland and in surprisingly quick order produce the demon-progeny, ie Freddy ” Kruegar “, ” slightly * backward * ” Keiry, rutting Marky & the twin dunces little Franny n Kaja: awww, what a lovely, wholesome family, eh?
ps no idea how that anomalous single bracket got there, ie before my name
—
[ Mod: Most likely the focus accidentally switched to the ‘Name’ box when you were typing a “(” symbol in your comment, and you then switched back to continue typing without spotting the change. Indeed, there is also an extra “(” symbol in text of the comment where the name change first happened: 2025/12/09 at 07:43.
The name you post a comment with is stored in a cookie on your browser, which populates it into the corresponding field of every subsequent comment.
If you remove the extraneous symbol manually from the ‘Name’ box before posting a new comment, the cookie will store the name the way it’s meant to be. ]
Cheers Mr/Ms Mod
“even if has become something of a cliche to use it to ridicule any Left Wing political entity. Noticeable that the Right never seems to attract the same dismissive scorn, ”
Well not from that sketch, obviously, because it’s aimed at the Left. The left does tend to be more fissile, one of its aspects lampooned by the Monty Python Team, and it also tends more to be “holier than thou” on matters of political doctrine, which was another.
You would think that anyone trying to start a new political party on the left would be aware of these stereotypes and strive to avoid them, but Your Party seems to have done the opposite.
If the gap to the left of Labour in England is massive, the socialist gap to the left of Labour in Scotland, combined with the pro-Independence gap to the left of the devolutionist SNP presents a massive electoral opportunity to a socialist, real pro-independence party in Scotland, but only if that party is a Scottish party. If Your Party Scotland can pull this off and avoid the Corbyn/Sultana factionalism then watch this space.
I agree, Geoff. As I’m sure you’ll concur……the SNP were supposed to be that Pro-Scottish Independence ” Left of Labour ” ( Christ! chancers like Reform could be considered ” Left of Labour ” now ) collective, even if they are and have never been genuinely Socialist. We know what’s become of that Party, so, there is indeed a gaping opportunity for someone/thing to fill that void.
If Y.P Scotland aspires to be that wish-fulfilment, it better get it’s shit together, rapidly. If things continue as they have been with the foundational ( ie Anglo-centric ) YP, it may be more productive to start thinking about an entirely Scottish ( ie made/based in Scotland ) alternative to that ( current ) shambles
Hard to know whether to laugh or cry at what looks – from the outside anyway – to be a ludicrous rattles-at-dawn squabble in the nursery.
FFS! the UK is being governed ( ( as it has been for decades ) by a collection of imbeciles, glove-puppets being * worked * by some of the darkest forces to ever blight the planet, who are aiding and abetting genocidal war crimes and continuing to throw petrol on the smouldering remains of an already lost Proxy War; and these clowns ( Corbyn & Sultana ) can’t put their prissy vanity aside for 5mins to solidify a serious , grown-up counter to the bumbling psychos leading us into one calamity after another and on present trajectory to the ultimate calamity, ie direct war with a nuclear-armed country. Fckn pathetic.
All that good will from good people desperate for a return to sane, compassionate, intelligent ( ie capable of understanding realities, rather than infantile, Marvel Comic fantasies of glorious victories over ” Super- Villains ” ) would be better given to people – potential leaders – who understand the gravity & urgency of our present circumstances – domestic & geopolitically – and KNOW that we don’t have time for such cringe-making internecine playground antics. Pity you weren’t able to form a Party, Craig
As previously stated…..agents of subversion would have been in-situ from it’s – Y.P’s – inception – conception, even – that’s to be expected ( hence the disruptive power-plays & factionalism ) but there is absolutely no excuse for the feeble performances of the two main characters in this – what’s giving the appearance of – slapstick farce, who seem more interested in displaying their * Progressive * ( ZZZzzzzz ) credentials than getting a grip on the elements that threaten to cripple the Party before it has even left the blocks ( or the nursery! ).
It will be an unforgiveable failure if stupid ” personality conflicts ” fatally damage this nascent political entity and leave the people it has been formed to SERVE ( remember that quaint notion? ) at the mercy of the current bunch of Political Class monkeys, or, the * New * Skidmarks On The Block, ie DeReform.
” Things Can Only Get Be……ooops! Worse ” for Stool Britannia
What about the Greens?
They’re only on 15% in the latest YouGov poll, James – higher than any ‘Left of Labour’ party ever (assuming you don’t count Charles Kennedy’s Lib Dems). It seems that the ‘huge space’ on the Left is currently being filled by Zack Polanski.
‘He’s over there’, the splitter. Sorry James could not resist.
Clearly there is nothing here of any value. Why don’t people just accept that hoping for solutions to come from political professionals is useless?
Their Party is obviously the same as any other party. Nothing good can come from the electoral system. Ignore it all. Build something else in another place.
“Build something else”
Like … what?
Awful take, sorry.
You acknowledge the Nobel motive of trying to allow for the general membership to have more involvement, and to limit pre-emptively organised factions from imposing an uneven influence onto this fledgling initiative, yet you are pushing the false narrative thet the dual membership bans were unfair.
The rape apologist SWP are well known for their disruptive effect and I’m sure a good percentage of your readership will already be savvy. The sign up explicitly stated no dual membership, inevitably, because to allow it is an act of self harm on par with collective leadership. This is why NO other national party allows it. Because Your Party will now be subject to external conversations and agendas that can affect it. It will be absolutely unable to foster its own identity, ironically, since it has also adopted a dogmatic, regressive identity politics pushed by a cabal of single issue activists, who were allowed to impose their cause de celebre thanks to 99% of initial responders walking away in embarrassment, at the mess Sultana and her team caused.
The independent alliance were building this for months prior to her joining (the last MP to join, and only with the proviso that they vote for her to be co-lead). Of course decisions had to be taken prior to members gaining their participation rights, what IS there to join if nothing has been formulated prior to sign ups?
She acted unilaterally several times, going against democratic decisions made by the steering committee and again, there is no scandal in the fact a steering committee HAD to exist and make decisions to build a framework for members to then join.
She mirrored the sign up portal, sending people to a fake URL, risking gdpr issues, she circulated “corrected” versions of policy documents causing confusion, she created an internal caucus putting out messaging that indicated she was leader, she told members right up until 4 days before conference that she wanted to be co-leader (another stupid idea) of this party that would not exist but for Corbyn’s legacy, tainted as it was by sabotage.
Sultana is coming off like a 5th columnist plant. And you have severely missed the mark on this one.
Ooj –
You say that to allow dual membership is “an act of self harm on a par with collective leadership”. But the membership voted for both when given the choice. DId you miss that?
Personally I would support dual membership – I don’t care what piddly little insignificant left factions people come from – and would oppose collective leadership, which is daft. But then it’s not my decision.
The “membership” such as it is, consists of a disproportionate rate of Sultana followers, and she has been pushing these options. Had she not, I doubt they’d have won. Her deeply disrespectful theatrics in boycotting day 1 created a narrative of division when the party was simply enforcing policy as stated in the interim constitution which had been submitted and accepted by the EC.
99% of initial responders walked away in embarrassment. Less People voted on the constitution itself than on the single issue “trans lib” amendment. This is clear evidence that a group of single issue activists, with no sense of proportion had been left to dominate proceedings. Yes the members voted for this, but the members, 1% of initial responders, are not representative of the broad demographic this party needs to appeal to if it has any chance of electoral success.
This was not a win for mass participation..this was a demolition inside Job. Agent Sultana has achieved her brief.
Ooj you are plainly from what I have referred to as the Corbyn faction. But don’t you see that you can’t run the party without democracy on the grounds that the members you have got are not the right sort of members?
I’ve got criticisms of Corbyn too. He has also promoted this regressive, divisive trans ideology with vacuous sloganeering.
But he has done nothing wrong with regards to his efforts to create a viable political vehicle for the working class.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, his efforts have been sabotaged. Do you not acknowledge the problems inherent with ONE MP acting unilaterally, in opposition to democratic decisions taken by the steering committee? Who died and made Sultana de facto leader?
She claims to back democracy, yet did everything she could to undermine democratic process within the steering committee.. again, a committee and effort that began many months before she graced us with her presence, and only on the proviso she be made leader!
If Corbyn had done even a sliver of these things you’d be detailing them..as it is you’re left with vague insinuations that his team tried to prevent democratic process. Quite the opposite. He has allowed for that founding process to be TOO open, allowing sabotage to run rampant by not imposing stricter structure on the founding process.
I had no idea who Agent Sultana was before all this, I’ve got her number now.
Divisive, reactionary, egotistical, using theatrics and parliamentary process to take playground swipes at other IA MPs… the list goes on.
Imagine the article you’d have written if things were reversed.. if Sultana had spent months formulating plans for what a working class party should look like only for Corbyn to Swan in at the last minute, demand to be leader, throw insults and accusations and legal threats around, boycott half the conf, brief against allies within the founding committee, circulate doctored policy programs, ignore EC registration stipulations, endorse a rape apologists group of known agitators, and then made wild proclamations about party policy despite not being leader (and after having claimed to back collective leadership) you’d be livid.
Have some consistency.
I haven’t been following the machinations of Your Party other than to be hopeful they will succeed in setting up a left of labour alternative. I sympathise with the problem of left factionalist infiltration by the likes of the SWP having seen this at work in UCU. UCU Left is an SWP controlled faction with aggressive tactics to take over branches despite membership views generally at variance with their own. But there needs to be consistency rather than a ban on specific hand-picked groups. Concerning “Agent Sultana” this looks a lot less plausible than Agent Starmer and Agent Streeting but you can read her bio on Wikipedia. I don’t see anything there suggesting contact with the security services. Meanwhile is she not the only openly anti-Zionist and anti-monarchist MP? Hence her appeal to the left, myself included TBH though her effect on the fledgling party will probably be divisive. Why does Corbyn not have the balls to say what he really thinks about the monarchy and about Zionism but rather shrouds himself with dubious poll-chasing SPADs?
Ooj,
Agreed.
Sultana seems to be the single cause of division which she fosters with every act and every statement.
No Sultana, no division.
No Corbyn, no party.
It’s that ” trans lib ” mob, which you rightly describe as ” regressive ” and ” divisive ” that are, IMO the single most inimical to rational politics grouping ( + by extension Political Parties ) extant. Their monomaniac and irrational fixations know no limits/boundaries, are not amenable to either Reason or even the slightest criticism ( recall the ” No Debate ” absolutism which defines it’s M.O/Worldview ) cares not a jot for anything other than advancing it’s own lunatic agenda whilst – laughably – portraying * itself * as the most persecuted demographic in History.
I suspect they are ” Imps of the Perverse “, at least some of whose number are not even remotely interested in the purported cause of ” Trans ” ” Rights “, but seek only to be subverters of any attempted resistance against the prevailing Neoliberal Hegemony. Just look at the Corporate muscle that has been financing and promoting this nonsense – from Wall Street to Hollywood via Silicon Valley and the Corporate Media as well as every West Gov and Political Class.
That should tell us all we need to know about these ” poor, defenceless martyrs ” who ” just want to quietly live their lives ” – whilst screaming TERF in the faces of , when not physically attacking, actual, real, natal women. Something these delusional misfits will never be, no matter how much the absurd TWAW mantra is intoned.
Yes Robert, any pro Independent party will be up against a formidable opposition and the MSM. But first things first, the independent vote must be won 50% plus one. then and only then can any other measures consistent with the states promises be thought about. When you imply independence has to be ‘taken’, again you are implying the state has been lying all along, I doubt they could get away with that.
I don’t consider the vote 45% for independence 55% against close. the 1995 vote in Quebec was close, with a 93.5% turnout, the for Independence party won 49.42%, the No vote 50.58% that was close.
Entryism is a common Trotskyite strategy that the SWP tried on the Labour Party and why Militant Tendency was expelled.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/entryism
You can understand why Your Party might be wary.
I cannot understand why committed Welsh and Scottish Nationalists would not join Plaid Cymru or the SNP and work for independence through them. At least Nationalists in Northern Ireland vote for a genuine nationalist party Sinn Fein, and would look askance at a suggestion they should join ‘Your Party’.
Harry, many ” committed Scottish Nationalists ” did join the SNP, the Party was formed by such people, but THAT SNP no longer exists and all the people fitting that description have either left or been expelled. The burnt-out remains is being destroyed by internal subversion, ” other agenda ” diversion ( Sturgeon ) and, above all, by feeble leadership lacking the cojones to acknowledge the reality that the Brit State will never willingly relinquish control of Scotland – that Referendum it so graciously conceded was never ” self-actualising ” and had the YES side won it’s almost certain they – Brit State – would have done everything in it’s power to ensure the result was not acted upon; claiming it was no more than ” consultative “. They got a fright though, at how close it came, and will NEVER make that same mistake ( from it’s POV ) again.
No, as Craig has said repeatedly……Independence will not be ” granted ” or ” allowed “, or even won – in any future Ref that has the same forces arrayed against a YES outcome as the previous charade. It will, of necessity, have to be taken.
Which will require leaders and advocates that understand this fact and, crucially, are not only up–for the unavoidable confrontation with the Brit State; but actually savour the prospect.
Things can ALWAYS change, but as they stand currently, the chances of such a unflinching stance emerging from the SNP are less-than-zero
Harry, I assume your comment was misplaced, ie not directly below the one of mine you were responding to.
” When you imply independence has to be ‘taken’, again you are implying the state has been lying…….”
No, that is not what I’m implying in that context, though there are numerous reasons to believe – at least suspect – the dark hand of the UK Security Services played a role in determining that NO result. But that’s a whole other subject.
I thought what I meant by saying Independence will have to be taken was quite clear, ie another Referendum will not be * conceded * by the Brit State: for the simple reason * losing * Scotland, specifically Scotland’s Energy – Renewable & Finite, not to mention it’s geopolitically significant location in strategic * defence * terms, is something it cannot countenance. The UK is in a terrible state economically as things stand, losing access to Scotland’s riches would exacerbate it’s perilous condition exponentially.
Maybe you still have faith in the self-serving mythos of good old British sense of fair play. I don’t. I’m convinced England-As-Britain will go to any lengths to prevent the loss of one it’s last remaining colonies. Maybe not a colony in the sense that the British Empire held colonies, but what else do you call it when one – supposedly free/autonomous – country has to get the sanction/permission of another country to determine it’s own course?
What do you call it when one country’s entire wealth is under the control of another, with the subservient/donor country being given back a smaller % than it generates?
When so many crucial issues, ie Immigration ( whatever your views on that subject ), Broadcasting ( witness the BBC’s blatant anti-Independence bias during and subsequent to 2014 ), Energy ( Scotland paying the highest domestic charges even within the UK, itself the highest in Europe & beyond, despite generating most of the UK’s requirement in this regard ), Foreign Policy, all these and more, are ” Reserved ” : what other word is there for such a scenario?
You can call it whatever you deem fit. I call it Colonialism
Please don’t say ” you had a Referendum in 2014 and the people voted NO to Independence “. So what? That was then, things have changed dramatically since 2014 and if N Ireland can have a Border Poll every 7 years ( that length of time being, oddly, considered a * generation * in that context ) why-the-hell should Scots be fobbed-off with nonsense like the 2014 Ref being ” once in a generation ” – note how the definition of a generation suddenly changes!
Robert Hughes, sorry no reply section on your comments. I Thought the UK subvention to Scotland per person amounted to approx £8,000. The SNP might be a busted flush and not fit for purpose, and so a leaner more proactively nationalist party was formed, the Alba party. In the 2024 general election Alba stood in 19 constituencies, its total vote 11,784 votes with its voter share 0.0.
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/6/political-parties
Whether people deem Scotland a Colony or not, there will be no change in its constitutional position as part of the UK state without the consent of all the people resident in Scotland voting by a majority in a referendum. I welcome a referendum. Any other course of action could result in a civil war.
Hi Harry. Yes, of course, there will have to be some kind of democratic event manifesting majority support for Independence; just not one like the 2014 Ref, eg a Plebiscite Election held entirely under the auspices of Holyrood and without the overbearing, negative influence of the British Establishment, eg no sly ” offhand ” comments from the Monarchy ( like QE2’s ” cautionary ” quip just prior to the Ref ), no BBC biased reporting, no scaremongering threats of apocalyptic consequences if Scotland regained it’s Independence …” Ooo you’ll lose your pensions, EU membership ( WHAT ! that went well under the safe stewardship of our English benefactors, eh? ), lose the protection of NATO -hahahaha, aye another sine qua non gone wrong, huh? and most terrifying of all……an iScotland would not be able to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest!. All nonsense, though we’ll never forget that ” Better Together ” went around contacting OAP’s scaring the bejesus out of them with that kind of BS, most shamefully, that they would lose their entire pensions.
As for the myth of Scotland being subsidized more than what it generates, ie the G.E.R.S legerdemain, that’s been comprehensively refuted, despite which the lie continues to be propagated annually. Here’s a reliable source of the subject:
https://caithness-business.co.uk/article/28294
Yes, ALBA have failed, thus far, to ” set the heather on fire “, and their polling numbers have been, to put it mildly, disappointing. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is the almost total focus of the ” Scottish ” MSM on the established ( Establishment, of which the SNP is now very much a part ) Political Parties, thus starving ALBA and the other smaller Parties of vital exposure. It has also to said that Party has been bedevilled by internal conflicts leading to a lot of rancour and angry departures. Nothing new there, is there any Political entity that doesn’t get embroiled in such counter-productive shenanigans?
Ooj, I agree with you, for the most part, most people who expressed an interest in ‘Your party’ did so because they thought Jeremy Corbyn would lead it, he being much better known and liked than the present LP incumbent on foreign policy and far better on other policies. In my opinion ‘Your party’ should be a party of the whole state, i.e. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that is until those constituent parts decide to go their own way, and vote for independence in a referendum by voting 50% plus one. All these parts of the UK have been given the right of self determination by the Westminster parliament as per the UN charter. To date all four parts have chosen to stay part of the UK of GB and NI.
It is with this in mind I think Your party will assume (quite rightly) that the vast majority of members would like to form a party represented by all citizens of the state.
Identity politics pushed by a cabal of single issue activists is not the way to win power, separate sections based on Color, Race, Gender, Religion or Nationality and many other traits which make up the state can be divisive (in the extreme). If those groups see those differences as their most important features (nothing wrong with that) it would be better to join a political party which shared them.
In the case of Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English sections of the state it would be divisive to have separate sections with a contingent of an (as yet unknown) number of Nationalists who want to split up the state, people who are Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English Nationalists should join those respective Nationalist parties (plenty of them). In the case of the SNP it would be an idea to include in its manifesto a statement to the effect that anyone voting for them realize it is a vote for Scottish independence (would they be so brave?).
The UK electorate, as in France and Germany are yearning for a political party which represents them, instead of parties wanting to form coalitions of the willing to wage war against Russia, and support for Israel in its Genocidal assault on the Palestinians. Its possible ‘Your Party’, no matter how many mistakes they make, could, (by default) beat the present competition since they are all busy shooting themselves in both feet.
Just to add to my comment regarding war with Russia, Zelenski has just rejected any concessions on territory. “Now he’s seeking to get European leaders to back him up, and they appear to be doing so. This is all a recipe for keeping the endless war going with no end in sight, and the proxy conflict nature of it continues to get dangerously out of hand”. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-definitively-shuts-door-trump-peace-plan-wont-cede-territory
So the war continues backed by Starmer, Macron and Merz, leading to the destruction of Ukraine, the loss of Odessa and the whole of the Black sea coast, and a truncated Ukraine forever at the teat of the EU and UK. What are these clowns doing?
‘So the war continues backed by Starmer, Macron and Merz, leading to the destruction of Ukraine, the loss of Odessa and the whole of the Black sea coast, and a truncated Ukraine forever at the teat of the EU and UK.’
This is the path they seem set upon. Russia can enforce its security through control of Odessa which they would prefer to achieve through a referndum rather than conquest. The COW seem to prefer the second option. Their thinking may be that this supports their Russophobic rhetoric and progresses the desire for an EU Allied Command to emerge from the ashes of NATO.
which they would prefer to achieve through a referndum rather than conquest.
The pattern so far has been conquest first then a referendum; held at gunpoint if necessary.
I thought Russia only sought to ‘liberate’ the Donbas region, why suddenly are they after Odesa?
“The pattern so far has been conquest first then a referendum; held at gunpoint if necessary.”
Were you there? do tell us what you saw, or is this something else you have gleaned from the MSM-that-has-never-lied-to-us?
“I thought Russia only sought to ‘liberate’ the Donbas region, why suddenly are they after Odesa?”
Do try to keep up, lots has happened since 2022.
What we do know is that Ukrainian forces shelled some of the voting booths during the referenda held in the Donbas area. Some fatalities ensued. These voters were also threatened with recriminations by the Zelensky regime when the area was recoverd by NATO forces. An interesting tactic from a regime which stresses its democratic credentials (post Maidan coup.) Kill voters to defend democracy.
Anyhow, Russia has shown that it is possible to hold elections during a conflict. Zelesnky is now being told the same by his major paymaster.
On the subject of the referenda the UN Secretary General declared them to be illegal. Quote:-
“violation of the UN Charter and international law”. Some days later he said, “The Charter is clear. Any annexation of a State’s territory by another State resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the Principles of the UN Charter and international law. … The so-called ‘referenda'” cannot be called a genuine expression of the popular will. ”
Pre-referendum polling conducted by the Russians themselves put support for annexation at 30% but the results were all in the high 90% range. Many Ukrainians had fled the areas as well.
lots has happened since 2022.
Well yes; at the start of the year Putin was denying any intention to invade and his useful idiots were sneering at US/British intelligence reports which said otherwise. After the invasion started we were assured that it would ‘all be over in a week’, tanks were rolling into Kyiv, paratroopers invading Odesa and that the process of ‘de-Nazifying’ and ‘de-militarising’ the entire country would be completed within a few months. Now it seems that was never the intention and that the Russians are choosing to fight “World War One with drones’ and only ever wanted Crimea and the Donbas.
What we do know is that Ukrainian forces shelled some of the voting booths during the referenda held in the Donbas area. Some fatalities ensued.
The only reports I can find refer to an explosion at one or two polling booths during the 2024 elections, not the referenda. These have been blamed variously on terrorists or a Russian false flag. Some injures were caused but no fatalities
These voters were also threatened with recriminations by the Zelensky regime when the area was recoverd
They only way they could know who these people were would be if it was not a secret ballot. Interesting admission.
Anyhow, Russia has shown that it is possible to hold elections during a conflict.
Russia likes to think it wasn’t a conflict, just a ‘special military operation’ and people got arrested for calling it anything else anyway your claim that polling stations were attacked and people killed would cast doubt on it being a good idea.
‘The only reports I can find refer to an explosion at one or two polling booths during the 2024 elections, not the referenda. These have been blamed variously on terrorists or a Russian false flag. Some injures were caused but no fatalities.’
Just ‘one or two’ polling booths so nothing to worry about then. When you say ‘blamed variously’ you should really have stated ‘blamed exclusively from NATO sympathisers.’ Your admission that Azov terrorists operated freely inside Ukrainian territory is certainly accurate. The ‘false flag’ thesis is paper thin since the RF’s motivation was to get as many voters out as possible: not scare them off.
“”These voters were also threatened with recriminations by the Zelensky regime when the area was recoverd.”” (my quote)
‘They only way they could know who these people were would be if it was not a secret ballot. Interesting admission.’
It is no such thing. The voters were not attacked for How they voted but for the very act of voting itself. Every free and fair election across the world records the names of those who turn out to vote. Since the Zelensky regime denied the legitimacy of the referenda (as explained in your quote from the UN) then those voting became legitimate targets in their eyes. Both before and after the event.
“leading to the destruction of Ukraine, the loss of Odessa and the whole of the Black sea coast, and a truncated Ukraine”. So, it’s not all bad then 🙂
I experienced Labour from the early stages of purging. In the early 90s, our local branch had a substantial number of Militant. They were far from a majority but were some of the Branch’s most active members. Many months, they would bring forward crackpot motions which we would vote down. Still they turned out on the doorsteps when needed. But Kinnock chose to put on a show of expelling them. Trouble is that it just gave the leadership and apparachiks a taste for purges. Ironically, Blair was quite tolerant. He knew he could get his own way while keeping the various factions in the tent pissing out (c)LBJ. But through Corbyn’s leadership, the apparachiks resorted to expulsion after expulsion and Starmer as leader followed suit with abandon. They described it as “shaking off the fleas” as members of 50 years cut up their cards. The broad church is long gone and we see the shrivelled husk that remains.
Very interesting. Someone should write a book about this (maybe they have?)
All Corbyn had to do was set up an unincorporated association in the usual way, with one other person and then proceed to recruit members who could have settled these questions by voting. Trying to go to a mass party in one fell swoop was always going to end badly. By seeking to control this process in an undemocratic way, which they must since there is no democratic structure, the founding group has introduced factional fighting whilst trying to reduce it.
Sultana looks like a plant to me too. The whole process will serve to neutralise any threat from the left.
I have no idea if Zarah Sultana is an MI5 agent.
I am quite sure, however, that her wikipedia entry would provide no evidence if she was.
Certainly Special Branch have had well-paid police officers employed full-time, for years, infiltrating very much smaller and less significant groups ie road protestors.
I’m inclined to believe, however, that Ms Sultana would need neither bribery nor blackmail to motivate her destructive antics. An egotistic and compulsively aggressive personality would be sufficient motivation.
Your Party would have done much better if Corbyn had started it on his own, and focused on developing a large group of much younger activists who could be ready to take the lead in 20 years time when things have got bad enough that YP could have a chance of winning an election. By standing for election in 2029 their only effect will be to take votes from Labour and allow Farage to win
The Gaza independents would surely feel more at home in the Workers Party, which is socially conversative and largely Muslim.
Corbyn was not starting anything. He would be straight back in the Labour Party even now if they would have him, apologising yet again to McSweeney and Mandelson for being an antisemite.
He had to be bounced into this Your Party thing by a young woman half his age.
As for the allegations that Zarah Sultana is a state agent, people should look at the spook adjacency of some of the characters Corbyn insists on surrounding himself with. Not least Ben Judah’s bestie James Schneider, a man who is actually married to Starmer’s comms director. There are also very open Zionists in and around him such as Justin Schlosberg.
Corbyn has never offered a satisfactory explanation of these figures, nor even been asked to as far as I’m aware. Likewise the characters he elevated to the forefront of this Your Party venture, figures with no discernible left-wing beliefs at all. (Not least the one who appeared out of nowhere when Craig announced his candidacy Blackburn and who had his campaign run by Jack Straw’s campaign manager.)
This isn’t to say I think Zarah Sultana is the answer. Her forefronting transgenderism is genuinely bizarre. It does look like the whole venture is now dead as a serious electoral optioin. But remember it was she who brought it into being, not the old ‘antisemitism’ apologist.
Spot on Zoot.
The real test for Sultana would be if the membership threw out all the Trans nonsense, what would she do ? As a female Muslim why is she so pro Trans ?
For anyone who is hoping for some real political changes, but harbours some none left leanings ‘Your Party’ is going to be a massive dissappointment and more of the same woke rubbish dragging the country down. Hi Ho, so it’s going to be Farage or nothing I guess.
“As a female Muslim why is she so pro Trans ?”
I don’t like her, but to be fair, she has every right to define for herself what it means to be a female Muslim. If her definition allows her to also support trans rights than that’s up to her. Actually there’s a long tradition of cross-dressers in some Muslim societies, though I believe they’re generally included with eunuchs as a kind of third gender.
I don’t know why. She has been bold and impressive on certain issues, like Britain’s part in the Genocide, but has undermined that by fetishizing ultra-fringe, divisive nonsense.
Farage would only tighten the circling of the drain and could even increase British embarrassment on the global stage (as he apparently thinks he can take on China.)
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-frightening-would-nigel-farages-foreign-policy-be/
The ultra fringe divisive nonsense – maybe but it takes two sides to have an obsessive conflict over this. I find the pronouncements of the other side often equally objectionable and intolerant. why should people care that much if a born man chooses to wear a skirt because they identify more with traits deemed feminine, or indeed if they use the “female” loos. Just agree to disagree and move on to matters of a more general importance. To the extent security forces are involved in undermining left political groups they will take great delight in exploiting this particular rift.
It’s quite simple – just don’t mention them at all. Why centre them and have the public believing that trans people are one of the defining interests and markers of ‘the left’? What is the electoral appeal in that?
As I’ve said before.
What is needed is equal rights for all, NOT special rights for any particular group. If the equal rights are not up to the job than update them appropriately. The lawmakers are paid enough, if they cannot do the job, sack them.
It seems obvious, IMO, that these vocal, minority issue groups don’t really want equal rights, they seek domination of the majority. Which is why the majority won’t be voting for Your Party.
If Your Party makes no real progress towards becoming the sort that Craig & Co would favour (and I honestly doubt that it will), maybe we’ll at least get an entertaining documentary out of it some day, about another Corbynite debacle unfolding before our eyes. Perhaps titled Oh Jeremy Corbyn 2 !
He’s flawed as a leader, but at least he stood up in a fanatically zionist Parliament and demanded an inquiry into Britain’s outsize role in the Gaza Genocide.
In any case, what do you make of the latest poll ratings for Genocide Labour?
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/labour-equals-historic-low-ipsos-records-8-10-think-britain-getting-worse-place-live
Point taken, about the demand for the inquiry. But hasn’t Corbyn during the past year also refused to answer plainly questions about whether he is anti-Zionist?
Anyway, it looks as though the Zionist effort to do away with Corbyn has not done Labour any good, though I’m not sure that’s the only reason for the present low poll rating. Social concerns might be even more important.
exactly. His dubious soft zionist SPADs won’t allow him to say what he thinks, on this issue or e.g. the monarchy.
In his recent interviews Corbyn has stated unequivocally that he is ‘anti-zionist’:
“UK’s Corbyn says new party committed to ‘absolute opposition to Zionism’”:
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/corbyn-says-his-new-political-party-is-committed-to-absolute-opposition-to-zionism/
@ Peter: Fair enough. I’ll leave it to Nick B to tell us more about the “soft Zionist SPADs”.
Why would Scots want to vote for Your Party ( Reform or any other colonial minded party) – another English party, Scotland is a colony of England’s which hopefully very soon the UN will declare it so.
When Scotland is declared a colony of England’s in the near future – things will change the UN’s resolution 37/43 says this on it.
“2.Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoplesfor independence, territorial integrity, national unity andliberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreignoccupation by all available means, including armed struggle;”
A_RES_37_43-EN.pdf
Colonial news channels (which is all of them) must be closed down – the colonial admin at Holyrood and all the other London HQ branch office political parties must be removed from office – close to one million English settlers have illegally flooded over the border into Scotland – that will have to be addressed as well, the £200 billion + that England’s steals from Scotland every year will also need to be stopped – of course Scots will need to arm themselves to take back their nation – that will be a problem, that will also need to be addressed – on decolonisation and the removal of the colonial admin at Holyrood, that answers to London new elections will need to take place to elect politicians who don’t answer to the English colonisers. Looking at England and previous countries decolonising such as Ireland, England – often tries to hewn off a piece of land from former colonies, in Scotland it could Orkney or Shetland, that England goes after – and its vital that Scotland acquires the armaments to retain territorial integrity from this.
”Colonial news channels (which is all of them) must be closed down”
So you are recommending censorship in our brave, new Scotland from day one?
”The colonial admin at Holyrood and all the other London HQ branch office political parties must be removed from office”
This will be done forcefully?
“Close to one million English settlers have illegally flooded over the border into Scotland – that will have to be addressed as well.”
In what way is that, if true, illegal? One remaining feature of the UK which I admire is the non necessity to regsiter in a particular area, unless a convicted felon. And how is this invasion to be ‘addressed?’ Mass deportation?
“It’s vital that Scotland acquires the armaments to retain territorial integrity from this.”
There are an estimated 10,000 UK army troops in Scotland at the moment, fully armed and trained. Chuck in the Royal Navy and the RAF and I guess you could about double that number. All of them operate for the most part under the authority of an upper class military establishmment trained at Englsih private schools who swear allegiance to the crown. That might be a tough nut to crack for a Scotish Republican Army since , like Hamas, it would have no ships or aircraft or tanks. A better move might be to win over the squaddies who are after all Scottish and the more enlightened members of the officer class. I think Alex Salmond was making headway along these lines.
“In what way is that, if true, illegal? One remaining feature of the UK which I admire is the non necessity to regsiter in a particular area, unless a convicted felon. And how is this invasion to be ‘addressed?’ Mass deportation?”
David Warriston
Firstly David there was no union – what is happening is that English folk are flooding across the border into Scotland in their droves and setting up home this wouldn’t happen in in any other nation without significant checks and balances a foreign country England controls immigration to Scotland – I chuckle when I hear or read about English politicians going on about immigrants (brown black people) flooding Britain and how it must stop, when Scotland is flooded with English they are our main colonial settlers – how is this addressed forced repatriation – a system well know to Whitehall and Westminster.
As for your second paragraph I’m well aware that settlers armed forces are squatting in Scotland – the renowned anti-colonialist Aime Caesar and Franz Fanon wrote extensively on this – Fanon said that almost all the time when a nation of people, start to begin the decolonistation process that the colonisers, that are unwilling to give what they’ve had – and a armed conflict ensues – in Scotland case it will be patriotic Scots against treacherous co-opted House Jocks, in a civil war, of course Whitehall and Westminster will finance and arm the traitors and the Patriotic Scots will seek similar from abroad say the RoI, or China or Russia or NK or India.
The late great Fidel Castro – sent troops to African nations to help struggling colonised nations break free from colonialism – it doesn’t have to be that way though but I doubt England will give up control of Scotland without a fight.
close to one million English settlers have illegally flooded over the border into Scotland – that will have to be addressed as well
If you’re going to go in for ethnic cleansing why stop at the English? There are 70,000 to 100,000 people of Italian descent living in Scotland plus Asians and Blacks not to mention more recent arrivals from eastern Europe. Perhaps as an interim measure all non-Scots could be forced to wear some sort of badge to identify them, be banned from holding public office, intermarrying and made to use different facilities.
Pears Morgaine.
Its England that controls Scotland as a colony, that it steal from – not the Italians etc, its England that Scots need to break free from – Scotland is in a similar position as Indian was with the Brits at the top (when Is ay Brits it was Westminster and Whitehall that called the shots) and a layer of co-opted Indians to carry out civil tasks and the Brits even employed many co-opted Indian troops.
I share your sentiments on this but its also important that local party power play is managed better that will be critical …have you seen and voted in the edinburgh your party representatives vote issued this week.
In 2019 a few weeks after that general election, I attended a packed public meeting of left leaning people in Coventry, which was organised to congratulate Zara Sultana on her success against the odds and to rake over the gleeds of the recent Labour Party defeat. During the speeches, Jeremy Corbyn slipped in at the back of the stage having come by train by London, sat quietly, and ended the proceedings in full support of Zara Sultana with one of his defiant speeches which only he can give. “We have not gone away. We will be back” he finished up with (or words to that effect).
In the hall there was no sense of defeatism but there was a determination to continue the power struggle against political elitism and it is this determination repeated across the country that has resulted in Your Party.
I do not believe that Zara Sultana is a “plant “ in any way.
I do think that there are other sinister insidious forces at work, which were there at the conference, to sabotage at every stage the launch of Your Party. It seems to me that sortition works in the same way as a pop concert with touts buying up tickets and selling them at inflated prices. I am pretty sure that there were people at the conference who had wheedled their way in with an agenda to disrupt, derail and sabotage it. I do not think for one moment that Zara Sultana was one of them.
I am still stuck with this fantasy that Craig with a proper team as support could be very good in this as an integral, and integrational, figure within such a party. And above all judging from far away Craig appears to have that hands-on pragmatic view on the most essential issues that would be so pivotal to enter a real phase of growth.
Certainly it´s puzzling that it shouldn´t be obvious to everyone that such an open infighting is much more harmful to the greater cause of the party than perhaps it is helping some particular factions within.
The German left daily JUNGE WELT likened YOUR PARTY´s possible fate with that of German BSW.
I am not going to join into such choirs of defeatism.
The fact that German MSM are totally ignoring both BSW and YOUR PARTY and focusing all their energy upon AfD should be confirmation that YOUR PARTY is standing in for the right causes.
p.s. Former DIE LINKE Dietmar Dehm and critic of Sarah Wagenknecht in a suggestive piece alluded to the fact that BSW interior problems and the election controversy were very machinated by German secret intelligence also. With almost 1M interested in YOUR PARTY similar undermining operations are not inconceivable.
The political and media elites in Germany are indeed afraid of the Faragist AfD, as it now looks capable of edging its way into the federal government, although it will probably need a coalition partner to do so. And as Robert Dyson points out below, there is a clamour especially from the hard centre parties (SPD and Greens) to ban the AfD, a move which – some might think – would amount to abandoning any pretence of ‘democracy’.
The elites were also worried about the hard left anti-war (and socially somewhat conservative) BSW party, which in its first year of activity came close to reaching the 5% threshold in the 2025 general election, which would have immediately given it about 25 seats in the Bundestag (federal parliament). It failed by about 9000 votes nationwide (0.02%), so has no seats at all. The BSW is a single-leader party with an elegant and charismatic leader in Sahra Wagenknecht, and from the start (as I understood it, perhaps AG can confirm) the party was careful to vet potential new members so as to keep out entrists and avoid policy divergence. Perhaps there are some lessons for Your Party as it struggles to get off the ground.
Glad you were there at the conference Craig. I voted online for the dual membership. Corbyn in my view is the only one who can carry the weight of hopes of a mass party for the first years. He is a Parliamentarian through and through and an exemplar constituency MP despite a ‘high churn-rate’ constituency. That is the strength he and the party can build on.
There are real ‘existential’ threats to the security of these British Isles; just for one is the tipping point for AMOC sitting out there in the Atlantic. Even the threat of walking us into a wider European war, is not as significant. Militarisation of the economy along with other other ingrained ‘establishment’ responses of yester year is directly contrary to the international co-operation essential over the next 10 or 20 years, co-operation needing as you have underlined, the UN and international law. A working decency propagated at local level across the present British Isles, GB and Eire, might allow a platform for debates to move into ‘truth telling’ and principled realistic risk assessment across our nations, and for Europe, an escape from a choice between propagandas and the dangerous stuff brewing in the USA.
The besetting sin of the left is the constant tendency to “eat their own” and
quarrel among themselves. It looks like Your Party is going down that road
which will ensure they never achieve any political power.
Nick Patterson
To be fair the MSM is always going to report any difference of opinion in a party they don’t like as massive in fighting.
To be fair, the tories are pretty good at eating their own: Thatcher, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak !!
It’s the nature of the beast – power.
I’ll throw in my two penneth.
I believe a significant proportion of people in this country feel that “the centre cannot hold”. These sentiments/intuitions helped provoke BREXIT and give further impetus to the nationalist movements in the constituent countries of the UK. The hunger for an alternative and genuinely democratic politics has inspired [Your Party and previously Momentum] with the traditional left coalescing with those outraged by the Gaza Genocide.
Mr Murray’s position, as I interpret it, is that an avowedly anti-imperialist stance is now the primary political objective given the current genocide (and its antecedents) and that dismembering the UK will necessarily reduce the imperial centre’s grip and capacities. This position is also being advanced in other quarters.
Remembering the good work Mr Murray did in covering the Alex Salmond trial (and evaluating whether the current Scottish arrangements for the separation of powers was sufficient to protect citizens from abuse) was a critical observation. Recollecting the contested debates and discussions during the period of the Scottish Independence referendum (which highlighted pros and cons on both sides) I would suggest that now could be the right time for those who advocate for independence to seek to engage their fellow citizens in the business of preparing for the country’s new constitution for when they achieve independence. This would be a broad undertaking seeking to include all the citizens of the country in a series of workshops and seminars where they could imagine and reflect upon what the constitutional arrangments could be in the future and how justice would be administered and liberty protected as well as what the currency arrangements could be. If this is already happening in Scotland, my apologies. I have family there but live in England myself.
In brief, I think that taking concerted steps to imagine and develop a consensus on what a fair and equitable constitution would look like promotes the health of the body politic. Sorry if this was a bit rambling.
I agree, as you commented earlier, that collective leadership is daft. We need more than Your Party members to vote for the Party and most people will be confused by this or will get mixed messages from the collective leaders – on those TV debates how will it work? I am still not sure how membership opinions will work – do we get to propose to vote again on items that were won on a close vote? Also, that ‘deep state’ must already be working within Your Party to destabilize and break it. In Germany the main political parties are doing everything possible to ban AfD and maybe eliminate people who may be elected. Could the same happen to Your Party? In the UK it seems to be near illegal to support International Law.
OTOH. Do the members really want change ? or do they want to keep following the old ways, hoping this time the outcome will be different ? It seems that true democracy and one member one vote is oxymoronic to having a single leader.
In a comment reply, Craig refers to “piddly little insignificant left factions.”
I could call it a pre-emptive epitaph for Their Party, but the schoolyard taunt “takes one to know one” would seem to suffice.