There are serious threats to “Your Party” from those attempting to exert undemocratic control, and they attack as trying to destroy the party, anyone who tries to improve things.
The Labour Party is now centre-right and the large majority of us to the left of it were delighted when Jeremy took the plunge to launch a new party. It is not that parties of the left did not exist; it is that only Jeremy Corbyn has the stature to break through into mass voter support. That seems to me undeniable.
My own view is that it would be crazy for anybody other than Jeremy Corbyn to be the first leader of Your Party.
Of course, “left” is a broad concept, and like most of my friends I have signed up for the new project in order to take part democratically and endeavour to shape a party whose policies I can broadly support. If that does not materialise, I can leave, but I do not expect to agree with every single policy. Any party whose members all agree with every policy is deeply unhealthy.
I have friends in Scotland who will not join on the assumption it will be a unionist party. That of course can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I do not think it will be.
The rumours circulating about tensions at the top of “Your Party” are broadly true and often remarkably accurate. I could write a great deal about individuals and their positions, but I want now to issue an urgent alert and call to action, without names.
Simply put, I believe most of us had assumed that Your Party would be a one member, one vote democracy with major decisions taken by all members with online voting. That includes major policy decisions and election to all the main positions in the party, both central and local.
In fact, those in charge are actively working to limit, to an extraordinary degree, one person one vote democracy in the party. That is the major reason why “Your Party” is still not actually a political party and still has zero members. It only has 850,000 people who have signed up to express interest, many of whom have paid money, but none of whom have any legal standing, democratic rights or say in how the money is spent – or crucially whom it employs.
This is not an accident and no, it does not take months to set up a structure to convert these people into members. The delay is absolutely deliberate, preventing any locus standi for democratic control of the establishment process.
Incredibly, this is not an issue that divides the different factions at the top of the party. One thing that unites them is a desire to run the party through easily manipulated structures; they just differ over who should control those structures.
There have been a number of formative meetings held around the country. There is no area in the entire UK where all of those who have signed up and joined the list, or even all those who have paid money, have been invited along to a meeting to discuss setting up the local branch. In every case local members of small political parties and groups within trades unions have hand-picked whom to invite.
The only time that all those in an area who signed up have been invited, has been to a small number of leadership rallies with Jeremy Corbyn.
If I may just give Glasgow as an example. Your Party has 42,000 people signed up in Scotland. We can therefore estimate those signed up in Glasgow as over 5,000 people. But the “founding meeting” of the party in Glasgow was of 120 people, invited by “word of mouth”.
The other 5,000 people who had signed up had not the slightest idea the founding meeting was happening.
On a larger scale this control by selective invitation is to play out at what is billed as the party’s “Founding Conference” in November. Ordinary members will not be able to attend the conference. It will consist of delegates selected by tiny political parties and local groups, most of which the large bulk of the members in that locality will never have heard of.
There will be no way for a member simply to put themselves forward for election by all the other members in their region as a conference delegate. It is entirely a self-selecting process among established left wing factions, just like the Glasgow meeting writ large.
Let me try to bring home to you the vast gap between the membership and those who are manipulating the system. The main organising component in Scotland is a small party that initially stayed (rightly!) loyal to Tommy Sheridan after he was traduced by Murdoch, as part of the split between the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity. This group then split again as a smaller splinter off from Solidarity.
I can’t even recall what they call themselves now – the Socialist Party of Scotland or something – and I have no reason to doubt they are great people. But they and a couple of groups of similar size – groups which without the Corbyn name would not combined be able to fill Blairgowrie town hall for a meeting on a wet Tuesday evening – are attempting to lead by the nose 42,000 people who would like to have a say in the matter.
Those 42,000 in Scotland deserve the rights and privileges of members. Now. As do those who signed up throughout the UK.
I cannot stress to you enough that this is not a glitch; it is a feature. Nor is it a teething problem. Those who currently hold the reins are determined to make sure those reins cannot be voted out of their hands. I have had a number of conversations with people actually in charge of instituting all this, and the prevention of direct democracy and the structuring of the party instead through controlled committees and caucuses is for them a given.
Part of this is because, far from being a fresh start, most of those actually running the putative Your Party come from the byzantine world of the Labour Party. Others come from small parties which are avowedly revolutionary vanguardist and entryist. Large putative memberships willing to pay money are a resource to be exploited and turned to the purpose of the group, rather than comrades to be considered as equals.
Which brings me to the second, and to me more worrying, aspect of Your Party, which is conduct of meetings. Aside from the careful selectivity of who gets to be at the meetings, those currently directing Your Party seek to avoid normal democratic rules of debate and – above all – to avoid votes at their meetings. This is how the local meetings are actually being conducted.
The first method to disempower the membership at a meeting is to disassemble them, into “working groups”. Each working group is led – and the word “led” is important here – by a “moderator” who has been chosen in advance and trained. That “moderator” gives an impression of communitarianism by asking the group what they wish to discuss from a list of prepared topics, or to some degree participants can choose the topic group to join.
The conversation is then led by statements introduced by the moderator. In Glasgow this was done on the basis of WhatsApp messages allegedly sent in – though who had selected the people who sent the WhatsApp messages to this unadvertised meeting was not plain. The moderators then distil the collective view of the participants through a process of alchemy, and later the moderators amalgamate the view of the meeting.
This method of “consensual” discussion of policy, avoiding debate and opposition, echoes the strategies employed within groups like Occupy! and Extinction Rebellion. It draws those who arrive full of idealism into a novel and apparently communitarian process, and anybody wishing to express a radically different opinion – or to challenge the methodology – is immediately not a legitimate member putting an opposing view in debate, but a disruptor and an outcast.
When I gave a talk to the Occupy! encampment at St Paul’s many years ago, I wrote afterward that these trendy methods of decision making actually did the opposite of what they said on the tin. They empowered charismatic individuals to lead the group much more effectively than the structured rules of normal debate, and effectively created a cult following. I was unsurprised shortly afterward to discover that encampment had, precisely through the control of charismatic individuals, seen sexual abuse of female members, resulting in convictions.
The notion that normal debate, with speakers for and against and proper votes, is bourgeois or undemocratic is entirely wrong. The great E P Thompson opened The Making of the English Working Class with the insight that the structure of the London Corresponding Society was in itself an act of working class assertion. An equal subscription and one member one vote was a revolutionary notion in an era where public gatherings consisted of listening to the priest, the magnate or his underlings.
The democratic conduct of meetings is actually embedded in common law, and represents the accumulated achievement of popular control. There is nothing outdated about proper debate and one person one vote.
There is now the opportunity to update this, with online debates available to all members, and online voting on all issues available to all members. When Your Party spoke of a new and modern form of popular democracy, I presumed mass online debate and online one person one vote is what they meant. I did not for a second imagine that replacing voting with New Age cult metaphysics was meant.
I want to emphasise this to you. I have spoken to scores of people, including some very directly involved. The avoidance of debate and of votes is a deliberate policy to maintain the control of a small group of people. In what would already be the UK’s biggest political party if they had allowed people actually to become members.
I am not mentioning names because my motivation is to heal this and make Your Party the force it should be.
I signed up immediately, to support Jeremy, and paid a small sum. I have never at any stage been invited to any of the meetings, steering groups or other activities involved in organising the party. I have never received anything from them except one vague email asking me to suggest the party’s name.
This can all be rescued. But those who have signed up need to get active now. Do these things:
a) Write to the party (reply to the email about the name) asking that formal membership be opened up immediately and stating that you wish to become a member.
b) State that you wish to attend the founding conference or at least to have a vote for delegates to attend the founding conference, with a right to put yourself forward for election if you so choose.
c) State that you wish to be invited to any meetings of the party in your area.
d) If meetings happen without you, kick up a fuss.
e) At those meetings, insist on some general discussion and the right to vote upon things. Resist the splitting up into small groups and manipulation of consensus.
f) In writing, make absolutely plain that you expect Your Party within this calendar year to have online one person one vote elections for all major positions, local and national, within the party. That includes the General Secretary or equivalent position.
g) State that going forward you expect Your Party to enact direct democracy, with one member one vote online on all major policy issues.
A popular movement depends on the people and we have the people. We now need to empower them.
———————————
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
Now that you mentioned Occupy…
The crisis of 2008-9 gave birth to 2 popular ideas in the US. One was “Blame the Big Government!” and the other was “Blame the Big Business!” The former resulted in the creation of the so-called Tea Party; the latter gave America the Occupy [Wall Street] movement.
It is interesting that Tea Party was an overall success. Although the Tea Party Caucus in the House became inactive eventually, with some members drifting to more conservative Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party Caucus in the Senate is still alive with 9 active and 5 former members. The movement’s ideology is still wildly popular and spread into the MAGA movement, Trumpism and so on.
However, the Occupy pretty much vanished w/o a trace. Not that the ills of the society that caused its birth had been cured, the share of wealth held by the top 1% keeps on growing. But the ruling class is very skilled in suppressing the Left. They will place their people into the key positions and hijack any Left party to serve their agenda. So, to sum this up, I do not expect any revolutionary changes coming from the Left. If any changes in Europe will be coming, they’ll come from the Right, from parties like AfD, National Rally, Fidesz, etc.
” If any changes in Europe will be coming, they’ll come from the Right, from parties like AfD, National Rally, Fidesz, etc.”
That’s only because the primary political dynamic in Europe is not Left versus Right, but Nationalists against Federalists and Atlanticists. Nationalists are the ones driving change, as Federalism and Atlanticism are the current status quo. Nationalist tend to be Right Wing, to the extent that that term still has meaning.
Clark
Points are True ,,,I have met Norman Finkelstine
Hello Brian. I don’t know what you’re replying to.
I think the extreme paranoia of our security services to any shift of national politics slightly to the left, is responsible for the Your Party control freakery.
They know far more about this than I do, and I suspect the MSM and other right wing influencers have geared up ready to flood the airwaves with anti-left bullshit, as soon as the party is launched formally.
I doubt many socialists want to see this happen, or want the membership flooded by applications or policy directions from proTory or Reform supporters.
Therefore, much as the control may offend those who believe every member should have the right to propose their own personal hobbyhorse as a policy suggestion, and therefore wreak total havoc on the fledgling party ( much to the delight of right wing media outlets); I think it is necessary at the start for the leaders to keep a tight rein on developments.
There’s a vast difference between letting people have their say and ignoring those who are spouting nonsense and not letting people have their say on the grounds that they might spout nonsense.
You may be right, but I disagree entirely. Even if you are, this amounts to a mixture of cowardice and paranoia. In the end, any takeover would happen anyway.
I’ve been skimming through this. I don’t need to finish to say, pe-yew, what a pile of crap.
But hey, it’s Corbyn so what do you expect. It’s the same trecherous, labour party apparathiks, “left-wing” deep state bastards who were running the momentum show.
State asset, liberal Zionist, soft imperialist trash.
If you’ve “joined” this zero member “party” Craig, they’ll probably try to kick you out soon for being “pro-Putin” and “Problematic”.
What a pile of shit. I don’t care if this reads as adolescent ramblings. You know I’m right.
Craig Murray knows all about undemocratic political parties so I believe what he’s saying about Your Party. He was democratically elected to the Alba Party’s NEC by members but stood down as part of a secret plot by his late friend, Alex Salmond, who was then the leader of the Alba Party.
There then followed NEC election results where voting figures were kept hidden and Alex Salmond again abused his power to try and silence members who were asking for transparency and party democracy.
Mr Salmond decreed, with pathetic excuses, that publishing the full NEC election figures might embarrass candidates or breach data protection laws.
Many of those who challenged the dubious election results and secrecy either resigned from the party or were driven out with a campaign of smears, intimidation and kangaroo court disciplinary expulsions.
Conduct, former SNP members said, had occurred in the SNP. The Alba Party constitution closely resembled the SNP constitution and effectively concentrated power in the hands of a chosen few.
It was only after Alex Salmond’s untimely death that Craig Murray admitted he resigned his elected position following persuasion by Alex Salmond..
I would like to think, Craig Murray now regrets his undemocratic conduct in the Alba Party and has learned from it.
I hope his calls for democracy in Your Party will be listened to.
What the truth is on what you say is a matter of conjecture, you give us no sources and so I disregard it, but the principle you cite is good, a political party where individual member votes on matters of policy count is important. It is the essence of democracy.
In other news the canary reports:
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/17/breaking-israel-just-took-out-most-of-gazas-internet-network/
I presume Israel is testing the idea that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does is make a sound. If communication from a population being killed is cut off will we hear the screams?
Good luck with the blog.
I won’t be coming to it any more.
…at least, not under the same username, eh ‘_N’?
I think it is too late for such a party – or indeed too early. It’s been increasingly clear in the past 20 years, and maybe before that, that it really makes little difference who we vote for in the UK. The ‘will of people’ is always twisted to suit the objectives of foreign policy. That was certainly the case with the Brexit referendum. And look, for example, just now at the ridiculous ‘reverse ferret’ about Starmer in the mainstream media, little more than a year after they themselves were his biggest cheerleaders, far more than even many Labour voters! The UK puppetmasters are like the owners of a failing football team in the last decade – constantly wanting to change the manager or blame the players or the fans to hide their own incompetence and corruption. Now they seem to want to show a sixth Prime Minister in a decade to the door. Jeremy is the best politician around, which is why he came fairly close in 2017 and 2019, and I voted for him enthusiastically – but until there is change at the real top, I fear he’ll just be used to usher in Farage or, more likely, the Labour or Tory stooge of the time. Sorry to be defeatist but there we are.
Here’s an excellent article by Asa Winstanley on the Electronic Intifada Will Corbyn allow Zionists to sabotage him again? and the parallel Youtube video Will Jeremy Corbyn’s new party be anti-Zionist?
The Asa Winstanley piece is very good. If you want a quite exhaustive account of the various factions and ideas circulating within ‘Your’ Party, you can find it here:
https://prometheusjournal.org/2025/09/09/whose-party-is-it-anyway/
To be fair, you can see how difficult it is to build something with a common cause, while grappling with a myriad of groups and ideas. However, it does seem that there is a central faction, from Corbyn’s past, who oppose a widening of democratic input on ideas which they cannot control. They seem to want to replicate Corbyn’s campaigns and structures, deluding themselves that this time they can win. On the bright side, some people/groups do have good ideas about the involvement of members and routes for deciding policies. They appear to be more on the Sultana wing of the party, and do promote a much more accessible party structure for members with online participation. Who, if anybody, wins out remains to be seen. But there is clearly a demand for a broadly left party thanks to the space which Labour have vacated in British politics. But if it retains the old model of central control by party apparatchiks, with their endless caucuses, and party lines to be forced on local branches and members, they can forget it.
Another account, broadly in line with Winstanley’s, from Sienna Rodgers, is here:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/power-struggles-inside-founding-jeremy-corbyns-new-party
Ian
Policy comes form discussion and opinion so if you don’t have that then it may as well be called; My Particular
Issue party.
The clear and present danger is Reform and the Tory Weasels who will either A) Join Reform or B) Pretend to
be against Reform but generally agree with its hard right character, despite the pretence of any enemy for public consumption.
Meanwhile in The Centre ( the political scene has moved so far to the Neo – liberal right that it is at least the Centre Right
now ) they think Labour’s salvation must be using policies to out right the right.
Never worked in the past so, why would Starmer and his useless advisers think it will work for the first time?
Basically due to a mix political chicanery ( Farage ) meeting up with cowardice of the Labour Party ( not raising the ire of Trump and his crazies – never min Netanyahu and his even crazier crazies ) the task is monumental.
For that you do need absolute precision and for absolute precision you need solid policies.
Otherwise members and representatives will be on Sky News etc only talking about what they are pissed off on a wet Wednesday
and not the core anti – racist – anti neo-liberal crap that the Labour the Tories and Reform agree about at base.
So ,my personal view is that policy is primacy and many Conferences need to be held with Delegates elected by one person one
vote to thrash out the core policies.
You can hear the echoes of particular people with particular issues re: Zionism and it begs the question of the people who
ask this question:
Say Zultana and Corbyn are non committal on that issue due to it being a big stick to beat Your party with like during Corbyn’s
leadership?.
Would you stay in Your Party or leave it to form your very own Anti – Zionist Party thereby undermining the whole project of fighting racists
and Neo-liberal continuationists to implement Austerity V 2.0
I’m not having a pop at Asa and his co-thinkers but this is where the left can be self defeating.
The party has not got off the ground yet and I understand the politics but, you can’t win voters over just by saying that Zionism
has to form the bedrock of the party.
Corbyn’s and Zultana’s anti Racism and Foreign Policy politics are as good as any one else’s on the left and in some instances better.
Also remember that any new Party has to have some type of Legal Base ( like a company I think ) so Directors etc have to hold that
position.
As far as I am aware a political party has to be a Legal Entity.
Local meetings first to thrash out policy – then choose delegates to go to more Conferences to vote on policies.
For that you need Standing Orders Committees too.
They would have to be elected too.
A complicated business is politics and as I’ve said before everything needs to be above board and transparent.
If not then you are little better that the other parties that you complain about.
The UK does not exactly boast the most particularly sophisticated electorate but, they are not fools.
@Ian, common cause is indeed the key to progress, not the ever-unreliable alliances and often backroom horsetrading of electoral politics. As Machiavelli noted, strong allies will use you, mercenary allies will sell you out, militant allies will try to take you over, and so on. Or in electoral politics, one interest group will dump the coalition once it gets what it wants.
But all this is too humanist. We should be looking for common cause with the other lifeforms sharing our planet, against whom fleeting, fickle and often self-defeatingly irrational human will pales into insignificance.
#biocracynow
You may well be right about much of this, Craig. I certainly share the concerns that what should be a mass democratic movement is being dominated by a select few. As someone who is involved in organising a meeting to discuss Your Party and has spoken at another, however, I am concerned that your piece will lead people to think that all of the meetings taking place are designed to prevent democracy.
Many of them are set up by local people who just want to get things moving. They don’t have access to the membership database so promote them as widely as they can. And, done with the right motives, group discussion can be a lot more empowering and productive than listening to a series of speakers.
Anyone in Newcastle upon Tyne on Wednesday is welcome to come along and share their views: https://facebook.com/events/s/your-party-organising-in-the-n/810541797989176/
Agree with you , our local pop up ‘anyone interested in yr party’ meetings have been just via fb or word of mouth at Palestine vigil etc.. anyone can come – no one even knows who the people are who have expressed interest online.. first meeting we realised we needed to evolve way to run a discussion / exchange.. messy, funny, but quite exciting potential-
Different to Craig’s experience. 👍👋
Wrote to them three times and the reply was vague, ambivalent.
There is a red dot on Norwich and I hope that they invite/inform supporters as to the when and where.
It really doesn’t matter how democratic Your Party is, if any government it forms ends up acting in the interests of outside states or organisations, as most European governments do today.
The apparent internal secrecy of the organisers of the “new party” makes me wonder what the reasons might be. A new political party with populist appeal is a threat to other major parties. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sought to undermine it, by encouraging lots of their own sympathisers to join and then vote out the policies on which it was founded and its executive too. Corbyn’s party may therefore have wanted time to agree on their outlook, essential principles and a manifesto, and a system for vetting potential members, before coming out as a proper political party. Events may have forced their hand, but the initial sign-up of 800,000 people may have been only a gauge of potential sympathy.
Let me make a prediction: TPTB in the new party, once they have agreed on what they stand for, will send out a second invite for probationary membership, and only those passing the necessary tests (ideological or practical), after a suitable probation will be given the option of becoming full voting members. In this way the new party will guard itself against subversion.
I note that Corbyn refused to declare himself anti-Zionist as plainly as Sultana did, as he seems also to have sat the fence regarding Brexit. Unless the leadership of the new party (including Corbyn) is united and plain on their outlook, including controversial issues, it may be that people should not trust it with their commitment but look to another party (or found their own!).
“The apparent internal secrecy of the organisers of the “new party” makes me wonder what the reasons might be.”
Secrecy is the default setting. What is the “privacy” that we all desire and think we have a right to, except our own personal secrecy? The party may be called “Your Party”, but to the organisers, it’s very much their party.
The new party is undefined. Corbyn is consistent in his moral principles but conciliatory towards his opponents. Sultana is outspoken and undiplomatic. The frameworks suggested here could provide substance to the nebulous and unformed new political party.
In contrast the event on Saturday was very coherently designed and delivered. The wealthiest man in the world gave his instructions to his admirers. The unfortunate congressman who died made many speeches outlining how the Project 25 agenda will be delivered including in Britain. If his unfortunate demise had not occurred his ideology would not be accessible to so many. His speech about how fascism will be established in Britain defined Saturday’s launch of the public unrest plans for musk’s long promised civil war. In his speech about his plans for Britain he explains exactly how and why union flags will be used to deliver the Christian fundamentalists’ takeover.
Our bishops and church leaders have been summoned by the WEF to attend for directions. Trump is expected in the next few days, following the recent visit by herzog.
Processing this rapid shift from dissatisfaction with Starmer and Reeves, to wondering exactly what we can expect to replace them, is dizzying. The hope that Andy Burnham can be shoe horned into a leadership challenge position in Labour seems a forlorn hope in this turbulent time.
It is unsurprising that Trump is bewailing the loss of his charismatic congressman. The question now is whether that will change anything. If you watch the congressman’s inspirational, motivational, speeches the shooter could have had one or more reasons to fear for his own safety, though more will probably come to light in the next few days.
The planning for the march last Saturday was meticulous and we were not invited.
“The unfortunate congressman who died…”
Who he?
I have just watched John Campbell’s attendance at the well orchestrated event on Saturday. He has sussed it in one. Before I watched Campbell I watched Charlie in one of his oratorical evangelist speeches – about Britain. Charlie defined everything, right down to the flags, how the Christian fundamentalists were going to get control of Britain. His speech is bone chilling in the detail of his plan. All that was missing from it was a deified hero, a messiah for the sweeping. The fascist takeover has arrived with a gentle prayer and hymn singing….
All the flags looked like they were at half mast from being half way up the lamp posts…
The political landscape in Britain has changed. Zarah’s openly anti Zionist declarations have sabotaged the movement and polarised the designer civil war that musk has invoked. The new party is sunk without even a name.
Zionism may be the current villain but the crime is merciless genocide, and it is the crime that must be called out, not the dream of a safe homeland that motivates the perpetrators of this terrible crime against humanity. Partisan politics have just been launched and dear Jeremy needs to get his act together and rein in the polarisation that could scupper the dreams his new party’s supporters hold dear. Peace and Justice is Jeremy’s platform. And that is what really matters.
What leads you to think Charlie Kirk was a congressman?
Republican law-maker is how he is being described
He was, just, a social media influencer primarily working for the MAGA/Trump camp. No official role whatsoever.
“Corbyn is consistent in his moral principles”
Betraying his supporters and grovelling to his enemies?
“…the prevention of direct democracy and the structuring of the party instead through controlled committees and caucuses is for them a given”.
As an amateur observer of politics (albeit long-term since the 1960s), that is how all “democracies” have always been run since the 18th century at least.
Randolph Bourne wrote some excellent notes on how the system works in the USA. Once the party machines had established a vice-like grip on the nomination of candidates, he pointed out, it was deemed quite safe to grant universal suffrage. When the candidates have been hand-picked, the plebs can vote as they like; the outcome will be similar, and always in conformity with the requirements of the “owners” – as Hamilton candidly explained.
Bourne’s “The State” is a fairly accessible read, and explains the system better than I could – even though it was written a century ago.
https://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/
“When the candidates have been hand-picked, the plebs can vote as they like; the outcome will be similar, and always in conformity with the requirements of the “owners”.”
Which was one of the reasons Corbyn had to go last time, with his attempt to have the candidates chosen by the local party members.
Hi Craig , it’s not like you describe in our local pop-up your party meetings – just random people who had the idea of an informal get together- spread the idea through fb groups & word of mouth , yes really 🤣I heard at Palestine vigil..chaotic first meeting as people try to communicate together, then realise the first thing we must do is set a way to communicate together… some people volunteered to take names & set up whatts app groups etc, and long discussions about how to do it safely etc Later, some people did say hmph why am I excluded ? But no one was excluded -there is no organisation in existence yet…just enthusiastic & hopeful locals , looking for a way forward.. It sounds like bad experience in your area , but maybe a mistake to assume it’s like that everywhere else .
Who are the letters to be written to ? Is there actually an organisation set up yet , who pays & appoints them – I thought this was all to be decided at the foundation meeting …
Thanks for all your work and writing . Best wishes.
For those of us who considered Trump the ( marginally ) * better * option in the jaw-droppingly awful choice between Tweedledon & Tweedledumb on the basis that the former would – as he proclaimed frequently pre-election – end the Proxy War in Ukraine, it only took one glance at his choice of who would form his cabinet to realise even that modest expectation was going to dashed on the rocks of our desperate, glimmer-of-light-seeking naivety.
We should have understood that our rational observations & intuitive perceptions were/are correct, to wit …..the U.S Political System is beyond reform or redemption, irretrevably lost, posioned beyond remedy; therefore incapable of producing a POTUS; Senate; Congress or HoR of genuine humanity and with the strength of character/integrity to admit openly what the USA has become, eg a Permanent War Economy; admit who controls it’s ( disastrous ) domestic & foreign policy and the planet-threatening lunacy of it’s submission to the fused interests of the Zionist/MIC/Megacorps ( eg Blackrock ) unholy trinity.
I say this as preamble to the contents of this latest post by Craig.
The scale and global implications may differ, but if what Craig reports about the covert machinations of a small cabal to seize/maintain control, at the expense of the mass of the ( future ) membership and that this cabal comprises some of the back-stabbing ghouls complicit in the fuckery that ousted Corbyn the last time; if this is all accurate, then the chances of this new entity achieving lift-off are pretty slim and, assuming it gets that far, the chances of it lasting long enough to win a General Election and going on to actually bring some sanity and genuine concern for the wellfare of the majority back to UK Politics are anorexic.
Granted, it’s early days for this nascent Party, but it’s head-bangingly frustrating that it * appears * to be making all the same mistakes that led to the hollowed-out degeneration of the Labour Party. Likewise, in Scotland, with ALBA.
Do people involved in Politics these days lack the capacity to learn from mistakes: or are they all so homogenised they think they are offering something different, when , in fact, they are offering nothing more than same unsatisfiying junk food as their predecessors and ” rivals “?
RH
With regards to Ukraine, a vacuous President Harris would’ve been manipulated by the same behind-the-scenes, escalatory forces that are driving Starmer in the UK. A Starmer – Harris developed plan for Ukraine would have seen total escalation, and dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. Trump’s campaign and its stated intentions : to end all wars and draw the US back from its ‘world policeman’ role, sounded attractive to MAGA , but he’s been manipulated by schemers. People like the historically, ultra hawkish Rubio, and Keith Kellogg and latterly, Treasury Secetary, Scott Bessent – who has his alluded to his own beef with Russia over LGBT+ treatment – he being a married gay man. The fact that Trump is inconsistent and has a very limited attention span means his opinion shifts dependent on who he has spoken to last. His policy of giving carte blanche to Netanyahu and Israel is just as horrific as many worried it might be. Is he better than Harris? Given the Democrat party’s obssssion with Russia and the risk of catastrophic war, the jury is out.
As for the UK, and Your Party, it nees to accept it will be in the establishment’s and possible foreign powers and their intel services, hopefully just metaphorical, crosshairs. What I’d do to protect the leadership is have rolling six-months stints for leaders; so there is no point in concentrating on and attacking an individual. The Greens had joint leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, which was somewhat ineffectual, but that could be due to the individuals not necessarily the joint leadership model. The idea is sensible enough and as the party’s founders, maybe a Corbyn -Sultana joint leadership model solves many problems?
“What I’d do to protect the leadership is have rolling six-months stints for leaders; ”
That’s a really radical idea, but the desire of people for leaders round whom they can form a personality cult is very deep seated and goes back a long way.
Yes, I meant to say to Goose I thought that was a great idea; but you make a good point too, B.
I suppose it’s always been the case- at least since the invention of the printing press created the capacity for mass dissemination of ideas/information – that * personalities * have played a significant part in Politics. One consequence of which has been the obsessive focus on the personality of leaders – actual or aspiring – with the attendant tendency for cultish hero-worship in place of critical appraisal of character and behaviour rather than rhetoric.
@Bayard
The party’s leadership model needs to take into account the vicious nature of the powerful opposition it’ll attract if it’s electorally successful. When Zarah Sultana recently stated she’d want the party to be overtly anti-Zionist, I thought, she’s either brave or reckless. Corbyn was far more reticent when asked if he agreed with Zarah’s comments, presumably because he’s been on the receiving end as leader and knows how far those vicious opponents are prepared to go.
No single leader can withstand the sheer media hatefest that will come their way. Therefore the leadership and decision making needs to be built around collectivism and strength in numbers. Having a rotating leadership(6 months) or a joint leadership makes for a much harder target in that regard. This is the lesson from Corbyn’s tenure as leader : don’t make the project dependent on one person, who’ll be thrown to the wolves.
Agreed that a Harris/Starmer alliance would likely have been utterly calamitous; but it remains to be seen if Trump’s tenure will prove any less disastrous.
I’m inclined to agree also with the opinion of some of the more reliable commentators, eg Col Doug MacGregor, that Trump is not an instinctive warmonger; but it does beg the question of why he’s surrounded himself with such a bunch of rabid warhawks – with the, it could appear, token exceptions of T.Gabbard & RKJ, and even they are staunch pro-Israelites.
RH
I think he chose Rubio to win over congressional and senate support for his other, more controversial choices, like Matt Gaetz, his initial nominee for attorney general, which was a v.controversial choice from the start.
The people lobbying him for an uncompromising line on Russia, are the European leaders and EU leadership of Kallas and von der Leyen. They’ve staked their pride on Russia being defeated and humiliated. Such a dangerous game these people are playing with European lives.
How do we invite people who are registered and/or donated to local meetings if we do not know who they are and vice versa?
Could it be that different local meetings or chat groups etc are being set up by different individuals who may have taken the initiative to do such a thing but are actually unknown to each other?
If signing up involved providing your residential address, then it may be that in the future, after the party has set up interim regional organisers, they will organise meetings by electoral constituency or region, based on post code. Vetting for full members might begin at that point. That’s my guess as an outsider, and it’s no more than that.
On the subject of anti-Zionism, the Electronic Intifada has reported that Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada has voted to become Canada’s first Israeli apartheid-free city and urges the Federal Canadian government to impose arms sanctions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsBpNwtGCx0
Your Party has replied. This goes a long way, depending.
Dear A-Lister,
Today, we advance the process of founding our new party — one that belongs to its members, not to the establishment.
Britain’s political class is united. They pursue war and profit, while our lives get worse. For too long, the rich have set this country’s political agenda. Not any more.
Our party will take the power back.
Achieving this objective requires a mass democratic movement that meets people where they’re at, organises with them to build power in our communities and lays strong foundations to transform our country.
We can do this. But it’ll take all of us.
In the next two weeks, we will kick off the full founding process: opening our membership portal, initiating wide democratic debate and publishing draft versions of our four core founding documents — our Political Statement, Constitution, Rules, and Organisational Strategy. These documents will be drafts in the truest sense, ready to be edited and evolved. Members will be able to comment, suggest changes, and track how each document develops.
Alongside this online process, Your Party will host huge regional deliberative meetings where thousands of members come together to listen to each other, break bread and debate the founding documents face to face. From Norwich to Newcastle, we’ll foster a political culture of healthy discussion and disagreement, enabling thousands to weigh in with their ideas, questions and concerns.
In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background. These delegates will have a big responsibility – to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference. The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, one-member-one-vote system.
This process aims to combine the best of different democratic traditions: individual and collective views, in-person deliberation in assemblies, sortition to keep things fair and representative, and direct voting to give every member a final say.
And we want to go further. We know Your Party can – and must – be even bigger. Keep an eye on your inbox to get involved in The People Speak, a massive door knocking campaign to ask people what they want from a new party and inviting them to join in.
Timeline at a glance:
September: Membership opens, first draft documents published and regional assemblies start.
October: Assemblies continue, draft documents revised, online vote on party name.
November: Delegates selected, amendments submitted, founding conference takes place.
Finally, if you want to get more active in Your Party and help members take the lead then we need you to help run the regional assemblies. Sign up here to become a facilitator and help ensure we have fun, energising and inclusive conversations at these massive regional assemblies. We’ll be offering online training in advance.
Sign up to become a facilitator
Reject the drive to war. The rush to cut wages. The clamour to slash services. The attempts to divide us.
Fight for a different future: For your class and your community. This is your chance to be part of something new. Something different.
In Solidarity,
Your Party
Not exactly welcoming, inclusive or inspiring…
Unsigned
Members expected to rally round a class war not defined in any way
Trots?
Oh dear…
Alyson
The big fight facing all people who are against racism – Imperialism – neo liberal economics etc have to focus on core issues and policies.
Otherwise you will have individualism and not a party.
We flatter ourselves because we live in our own milieu that ‘ everybody’s interested in politics’
They are not as they are busy surviving and only catch the news ( partisanly served up by the MSM) so if they hear something(s) even on the MSM that chime with them they will agree and hopefully vote for it.
They are not doctrinaire as 40% for Corbyn led Labour in 2017 and 33% ( with 600k more votes than Starmer led Labour ) more than suggests a decent chance of a hearing or a vote.
But, they will not hear or take notice of a bunch of individuals – who of course have their own favourite issues and no doubt important issues, unless these are brought together as policies.
That means trading off of personal politics to a group of people you trust.
If you don’t trust those people don’t join the party.
I doubt that the Purist Left will be too deeply involved in Your Party ( it’s Bourgeois) so, I think that your fears are unfounded.
Out of the 33% of Corbyn led voters in 2019 I hope that they will make up the majority of members/delegates and councillors etc.
I can tell you one thing that most Corbynists will remember is how the Labour Party Machinery was used against them.
They should note that whomever wields the bureaucratic power the same will wield the political power.
No threat from the British so called Hard Left as it would taint their reputation.
They can work together on issues – no problem with that but, no left group has ever run the Labour Party.
Benn got close as did Corbyn and as you know that was headed of at the pass.
Mainly by The PLP and other bureaucrats.
It is a delicious irony that the same people ( The Blairites mainly) have managed in one year to go from a majority of around 160+ seats to hoping to keep 140 at the next GE.
And their panic is the soft left and lefts opportunity.
The antidote to their right shift should be a left shift and it will happen.
How many will follow is unknown but, voters can’t vote for an alternative party until they know what ‘ alternatives’ they are voting for.
Those are policies and that is why policies are more important than who gets the nicest biscuits and other perks..
The policies are it.
And we will know if they are IT if the MSM and others start trying to denounce those policies.
Particularly by fouler means than they did with Corbyn.
They have had plenty of practice.
Big fight?
Corbyn has stood for peace and justice since he was vilified in the press.
Peace and justice based on rule of law, policing by consent, democratic accountability, and European socialist party alliances.
How can this notion of a class war possibly solve anything?
It’s straight out of the ‘Far Left’ factionalism of the 1980s.
It is democracy that is under threat. Hearts and minds need to be aligned to a shared concept of a better future. Any kind of war makes a mockery of hope. Corbyn’s Labour Party (RIP) produced a brilliant manifesto. The LibDems, before Clegg hijacked the party, had a wonderful manifesto. These were agreed templates for a better future, democratically created by party members, volunteering their time and commitment to a vision for a better future.
Class war ain’t it.
Alison
The Labour Party’s Manifestos under Corbyn were Keynesian – not communist and although I am more to left than Corbyn I voted for labour both times.
In fact even under Blair I voted Labour and have done since was 18.
I am more of a Class Worrier than a Class Warrior these days due to changed political circumstances.
It is no accident that Western politics have given rise to Trump – the leaders of the EU and bless him Starmer.
Cometh the hour – cometh the man (sic) and they have arrived.
None of them have any positive things to de except be anti left ( whatever that means/) and to halt the rise and threat of the BRICS countries..
None of them know it but, that’s why they were selected.
I like Corbyn as I did Tony Benn and I have said many times in Corbyn’s defence that he is no Fidel Castro but he will do for me.
His Foreign Policy views can not be questioned and being as I have been an anti – Imperialist for a very long time I don’t question Corbyn’s positions on that because, I don’t need to.
Class War in the West is nowhere near the radar and Keynesianism is viewed as Communism amongst the Powers That Be.
Your Party has a chance to reverse that particular stupid theory and prove to voters that there is an alternative to Austerity/Racism/War and division.
If it can’t do that then it shouldn’t exist and we should all carry on as we were before.
Which is useless.
Oh dear.
“will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background.”
Let’s see how this one pans out …
👏
Just got this email
Dear David,
Today, we advance the process of founding our new party — one that belongs to its members, not to the establishment.
Britain’s political class is united. They pursue war and profit, while our lives get worse. For too long, the rich have set this country’s political agenda. Not any more.
Our party will take the power back.
Achieving this objective requires a mass democratic movement that meets people where they’re at, organises with them to build power in our communities and lays strong foundations to transform our country.
We can do this. But it’ll take all of us.
In the next two weeks, we will kick off the full founding process: opening our membership portal, initiating wide democratic debate and publishing draft versions of our four core founding documents — our Political Statement, Constitution, Rules, and Organisational Strategy. These documents will be drafts in the truest sense, ready to be edited and evolved. Members will be able to comment, suggest changes, and track how each document develops.
Alongside this online process, Your Party will host huge regional deliberative meetings where thousands of members come together to listen to each other, break bread and debate the founding documents face to face. From Norwich to Newcastle, we’ll foster a political culture of healthy discussion and disagreement, enabling thousands to weigh in with their ideas, questions and concerns.
In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background. These delegates will have a big responsibility – to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference. The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, one-member-one-vote system.
This process aims to combine the best of different democratic traditions: individual and collective views, in-person deliberation in assemblies, sortition to keep things fair and representative, and direct voting to give every member a final say.
And we want to go further. We know Your Party can – and must – be even bigger. Keep an eye on your inbox to get involved in The People Speak, a massive door knocking campaign to ask people what they want from a new party and inviting them to join in.
Timeline at a glance:
September: Membership opens, first draft documents published and regional assemblies start.
October: Assemblies continue, draft documents revised, online vote on party name.
November: Delegates selected, amendments submitted, founding conference takes place.
Finally, if you want to get more active in Your Party and help members take the lead then we need you to help run the regional assemblies. Sign up here to become a facilitator and help ensure we have fun, energising and inclusive conversations at these massive regional assemblies. We’ll be offering online training in advance.
Sign up to become a facilitator
Reject the drive to war. The rush to cut wages. The clamour to slash services. The attempts to divide us.
Fight for a different future: For your class and your community. This is your chance to be part of something new. Something different.
In Solidarity,
Your Party
I also got an email earlier this afternoon offering facilitator training from Assemble to help with the above.
We will have to see how it goes and personally I think it’s going too slowly but still optimistic enough to try given how dire all the alternatives seem to be at present.
If this fails or is not as it claims to be then I think the only thing left would be to totally drop any form of party and back independents…
We’ve had this email. It’s an attempt to do things differently. The founders could have defined a structure, likely more or less a carbon copy of Labour with its CLPs and all, but they are trying to build it based on consultation from the bottom up. Sortition is an interesting departure from the usual election of delegates with all the shenanigans that can occur. As regards slowness, it’s probably close to four years until the critical General Election. Here in Wales it’s more pressing with under 8 months to the Senedd election but we have a decent selection of parties already. Plaid has some good candidates and Welsh Labour is more or less what it always was – not great but not Starmerly awful either. It’s quite widely felt that Your Party is at least as big a threat to Reform as to the other parties. Reform thrives because it’s new and Tweedledum and Tweedledee have failed (and keep aping its policies), not necessarily because its prospective voters actually like what it stands for.
Sorry to be thick, but would someone like to explain what a founder might be ?
In this case, publicly at least, it’s Corbyn and Sultana. I was thinking in more general terms: what any of us might do if we chose to try to found a new party. Would we write a constitution (bla bla bla… the party will be organised by Westminster constituencies and the following officers will be elected in each:… bla bla bla) then invite people to join or would we recruit a load of interested people and let them thrash out the details.
Thanks for that.
My two pennyworth…
If it’s going to be democratic then it must be driven from the bottom up. Local groups need to define their basic requirements and pass those up to the conference level for general discussion. The problem is to not lose or disregard ideas as they progress up the chain.
Ha, bit like Reform then, re voting rights etc!
If any of this is true about the new party set up, it is very concerning. I hope Your Party reads and considers Murray’s points.
The only thing I disagree with here is the online voting. I think people would be extremely naive to think online voting will not be tampered with – have we not learned the lessons from the fraudulent, corrupt digital voting/counting machines like the Dominion computers used in many countries’ elections?! I would earnestly advise anyone to never use online voting (meetings and debates, yes, but not voting) – wiser to use the Swiss’ example of small cantons with town square style voting.
Personally, I think voting transparency would solve a lot of problems re: fraud and corruption; if adults are mature enough to vote – they should have the courage of their convictions and not shy away from any transparency about their political opinions including their votes.
” Personally, I think voting transparency would solve a lot of problems. ”
It would just leave voters vulnerable to intimidation, blackmail, and vote buying.
I can understand the concerns with transparency that you mention, but the vote-counting fraud and corruption is so pervasive in our political systems, elections, etc. that we really do need to somehow get out of that downward spiral. To offset any form of intimidation and vote-buying, etc. due to having voting transparency, we could emulate the Swiss and have small political areas like their cantons. Small political areas could ensure that there’s much more chance that people would know most if not all of the members of their local community and that would mean intimidation, lobbying and bribing of any sort would be quickly nipped in the bud because the local police would also know everyone personally (like in small villages of the past), although importantly, we would need to get rid of the modern, freemasonic-headed police force (and judiciary) of course and gain a more local community one! Also, like the Swiss, we would ensure there is ‘civic education’ so everyone knows the etiquette surrounding things like participatory direct democracy and political transparency (including voting) – things like: the importance of being very civil with others in your political community despite differences e.g. practising free speech properly, being tolerant of other people’s political opinions, ideologies, decisions and voting decision, etc. Also, learning/brushing-up on things like critical thinking and how to discern information, how to debate properly, and so on…
We COULD very easily have less corrupt systems if we wanted to, and being more transparent is one solution but it would require bravery, active changes with these safeguards mentioned. After all this time humans have lived on this Earth, we really should be able to be civilised with each other and our differences of opinion, politics and ideology by now?
Very well said, Nas.
I remember volunteering to be a facilitator for Greenpeace, long ago. I was sent contact details of just a few people wanting to join a local group. We met in the local pub and put out a newsletter. More people came. We moved to a bigger meeting venue. More people came. We moved to a bigger town. More people came. It grew organically and formed its own organisational structures, local priorities, action plans. I moved on long ago but it remains a local democratically defined group which is inspired by the organisation’s core principles and priorities.
It may only need the ‘founders’ to create the core principles and priorities of this new political grouping. Then if these defined ideologies could inspire others to create local priorities that align with core values then it could grow roots in communities that share a vision for a better and more inclusive future.
Far Left anti establishment exclusivity is not what the country needs. It will feed straight into the civil war plans outlined by Musk who told his listeners to kill their political opponents before they get attacked themselves.
Sultana was often criticised in Parliament for directly addressing members she disagreed with. The formality of addressing the Speaker ensures civil debate around issues, not personal attacks. Addressing the Chair in local community groups serves a similar function.
Britain’s tradition of democracy permeates every layer of society. School councils elect representatives. Parish councils serve communities. County councils are a bit of a problem. I would prefer to see delegates from town councils deliberating county priorities on a representative basis, rather than a separate elected body of paid individuals who get entrenched. Meeting in person, talking up ideas, getting consensus and putting ideas across more widely, can grow a body politic.
The biggest issue facing Britain today is globalist monopolies and lack of meaningful work. Growing the economy from grassroots cooperation can only happen if people get out of their algorithms and meet in person, to make practical plans that have consensus agreement from all who will be affected.
The Animal Farm model is the PLP structure, without Reform’s billionaire funding.
There needs to be different thinking…
The ideal of the“privacy of the polling station” belongs to a different era – a time when authorities actually respected boundaries. If authorities wanted personal information e.g. banking, finance or medical they had to break into a building and jemmy a filing cabinet open with a crowbar. If they wanted to read your mail, they had to get a warrant, ditto telephone wiretaps – it was a procedure involving physically connecting wires. And limited storage meant they had to choose their targets carefully and justify it all.
Nowadays, in this digitalised hellscape we’ve arrived at, they abuse the shit out of every power they get; personal information : banking; medical records, email… all privacy has been broken, deliberately. And anyone blowing the whistle from the inside is prosecuted to the max. So if privacy is meaningless and everything is breached, why not have an option to keep your voting records? Personally, I’ve never been ashamed of any vote I’ve cast.
We can end bad actors’ ability to meddle and sabotage through digital record keeping. Whether it be foreign or domestic intel agencies, they can do nothing to sabotage a party that has voting transparency and auditing capability.
“the vote-counting fraud and corruption is so pervasive in our political systems, elections”.
Is it though ? What do you base that on ? Obviously only talking about the UK.
Our antiquated way of voting is pretty corruption-proof, with public scrutiny possible from vote to counting to declaration of result. The only weak spot is postal voting, which is presumably why that has been so massively expanded recently.
“It would just leave voters vulnerable to intimidation, blackmail, and vote buying.”
Yeah, that’s the official line, but is there any actual evidence for it? Just because it’s in the history books doesn’t mean it’s true.
In any case,intimidation and blackmail can only be practices safely on a tiny minority of voters without it becoming blatantly obvious whereas the sort of ballot-rigging that is possible with electronic voting can add hundreds of votes at a stroke of a key. If you want to buy votes, they are just as available when the ballot is secret or not. The only difference is that with a secret ballot, you can’t be sure of getting what you paid for, but, again, enforcing that moves you into the realm of intimidation. It’s not like you can sue someone for not voting how you paid them to vote.
It’s practicality. If decisions in the new party are to be made broadly rather than by a small clique, it needs to be quick and cheap to consult the membership. From the email that went out, it sounds like Your Party is setting up its own online systems to do this. I agree there’s the potential for these systems to be subverted from inside or outside but the benefits probably outweigh those risks.
Not a happy rale. Not a happy start. And if its like this now, what will it be like later.
Politics is a dirty business. Political parties by and large are a dirty business. But not always. I personally for nearly forty years was a member of the SNP. But for a long period of time I think I can say the the party was quite collegiate and democratic for a long period of my time a member..
Vision and unity in an objective transcended the party where right could live with left. Yes the 79 group got excommunicated but they came back in and became part of the success story leading up to the narrowly missed, or was it robbed 2014 referendum. And yes Siol nan Gaidheal were proscribed around the same time.
The SNP and its successful integration and alignment with the wider success story caused huge fear in the establishment. And that is why the deep state of the
establishment aided and abetted hollowing out the SNP, shifting its focus from independence.
And it was similar forces that undermined Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. But Cornyn today could as leader of a new party halvanise huge support. England is calling out for change as Scotland showed by the success of the popular SzNP and wider Yes movement.
And so it would be foolish not to think that the shenanigans of a relatively small group in Scotland trying to take control, plotting to exclude the general membership of the nascent party are but agent provocateur state assets.
State assets infiltrate deep. Protest groups, protocol groups, they are in there. And where would they not be in the start up of a left of centre party like the one Corbyn has set up and which could threaten absolutely the iron grip of the neo liberal grip held over the faux parliamentary parties that currently rin Westminsterr on their behalf.
So, its good that Craig has flagged this up. But it needs to be flagged up further. People join things in good faith. Not all are and can be active. Membership of anything is a spectrum.
People also follow a leader. Someone who can inspire, can appear to want to address a vision for better.
And that is why Alex Salmond was taken out in Scotland. And in the converse, that is why the popular Nigel Farage, and characters like Tommy Robinson are supported by hyper rich like Elon Musk.
When was it ever any different on the far left? It’s full of cults, dogma, ideology, cliques and forms of organisation designed to exclude people and prevent open discussion.
Any progress in politics and society isn’t going to come from that direction. A whole different set of ideas is needed if there’s to be improvement in society (if any is possible at all, which is doubtful). At the heart of it would need to be a psychological approach where there is no desire to be dominant and control the people around you. Instead of that a sense of equality and mutual respect would be the key.
So an absolute minimum of hierarchy. Also a serious attempt to include everyone. And the ideas should be non-dogmatic, not based on ideology, not just repeating what Marx said and taking that as an article of faith.
Also no worshiping of charismatic leaders who then become overblown gurus. I would also prefer a focus on realistic goals – concrete things that would benefit ordinary people – rather than utopian dreams that will never happen.
That’s the kind of party I’d be prepared to support and participate in. But I’m not sure such a thing is even possible and it certainly isn’t actual. You’re never going to see it in a socialist party.
Only one ideology has been permissible in British government, politics and media for almost half a century.
Neoliberalism, the political ideology of the rich.
Look at the reaction right across the board when Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party.
It will be interesting to see if the developing story of Corbyn and Sultana’s new party will follow the pattern of Animal Farm or the Soviet Union. To begin with, Old Major = Marx or Lenin could represent Corbyn, but there may be a number of possible equivalents to Napoleon = Stalin, Snowdrop = Trotsky, Squealer = Pravda and Old Boxer = Stakhanovites (self-sacrificing people who keep the system going, until they get purged), and Napoleon’s dogs = secret police or enforcers.
The September 15 message/update from Your Party is not signed by anybody.
Why didn’t Corbyn and Sultana sign it, to indicate they’re working together harmoniously?
The address at the bottom of the page, in very small print, is the address used by Peace and Justice Project Ltd., a company of which one Jeremy Bernard Corbyn is a director.
All rather dismaying, given the persistent reports of internecine warfare between the Corbyn and Sultana camps and alleged attempts by former Corbyn officials to seize control of the process.
“We’ll be offering online training in advance”. Who is “we”?
It is reassuringly vague, a good old political standby. But is has some potentially positive statements about assemblies of supporters to debate founding core principles. We shall see. On a lesser note, it did make me laugh that the copywriter, in a bid to sound non-metropolitan, declared staunchly that assemblies will be held ‘from Norwich to Newcastle’ – a rather narrow target audience, which will not impress the many outside of that orbit. But i take it they were trying to express a local strategy, albeit very poorly, clumsily and rather Monty Python-esquely (or in other words, very Jeremy Corbyn).
Received a txt from your party with an outline of organisational agendas. They want to open amembership portal this month and open first draft documents as well as announcing regional assemblues.
October will see more assemblies, with revised documents being opened to an online vote on the party name.
November will see delegates selected, amendments submitted, as well as the founding Conference taking place.
Well, there are moves afoot. There is also a call to sign up facillitators which will receive online training to ‘channel energies, have fun, and ensure inclusive coversation at these massive regional assemblies.’
Maybe we should go with the flow for now, lets see how the facillitations works out and whether genuine debate is encouraged, as well as voting for or against draft amandments and policies
There is some debate about the lottery aspect of who is chosen to attend, with particular focus on whether this also applies to those who have appointed themselves as organisers. See Craig’s tweets.
The lottery system for deciding on initial delegates is very interesting, and sounds akin to citizens’ assemblies for discussing difficult policy questions. However the lottery there applies to all citizens. Here it means that only a few people selected by lottery from those who want to be involved, have a voice in laying foundations, which looks like a real weakness. Suppose people of the calibre of ex-ambassador Craig weren’t selected to be delegates! Perhaps, instead, a number (say, half a dozen) delegates should be selected at constituency level from people who have signed up and then become acquainted in meetings, by electing representatives, just as any clubs might elect their officers? People who were interested in being delegates could volunteer, make a case and let the people present decide. A facilitator could forward names and contact details to the organisers of the conference.
re: UN Commission calling out genocide by Israel, Sept. 16th
Can someone explain to me why the Commission addressed 4, not 5 of the categories of genocide???
“Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds”
16 September 2025
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
“The Commission has been investigating the events on and since 7 October 2023 for the last two years, and concluded that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”
No. 5 to my knowledge “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is more than fulfilled by not abducting children but shooting them into their heads.
Good old UN. Two years and over 200,000 deaths and now they state the bloody obvious. WTF are they going to do about it ? Is israel still a member of UN bodies ? This useless organisation needs to join NATO in the dustbin of history.
According to Microsoft Copilot AI, under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a country can only be expelled or suspended from the UN if the Security Council recommends it. In apartheid South Africa’s case, the geopolitical climate allowed for such a recommendation. For Israel, the United States holds veto power in the Security Council and has consistently used it to block resolutions critical of Israel.
Therefore it looks as though a change of regime and President in the US at least will be needed, for Israel to be suspended from the UNGA as apartheid South Africa was, and that’s not due to happen for another few years.
“Therefore it looks as though a change of regime and President in the US at least will be needed, for Israel to be suspended from the UNGA ”
Hell will freeze over, first. What needs to change is the nature, powers and makeup of the Security Council. Why is France on there? They weren’t even one of the victors of WWII. France and the UK should go and be replaced by India and the veto system should be modified so that the US can’t just block everything it doesn’t like, not that anything like that will ever happen. The UN will go the way of the League of Nations first.
Begs the question what is the actual role of the Security Council ? They don’t, won’t, can’t provide security for the UN and they don’t represent the modern world. Needs more members and no veto’s, only majority decisions. Just another reason to bin them. BRICS is the future !
So it should be christened the Factional party, and we’ve signed up to be bystanders with the Exclusive Brethren? It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
Reminds me a little of the byzantine world of the Labour Party. I joined the day Corbyn became leader and left a couple of years ago, after being suspended for shouting at the local CLP chairman when I heard he was circulating the meeting minutes only to people who’d attended the last meeting. But he’d kept it secret from the membership. That’s exclusivity for you.
Corbyn cannot be leader, he was brought down 2017-19 by a brutal wave of character assassination attacks joined in by everyone including the Chief Rabbi, and you can still watch the libellous jokes on reruns of Have I Got News. Corbyn’s team then put up no defence (whatever became of Seumas Milne?) and Corbyn imploded under pressure from the likes of Andrew Neil. He is 76 and in no shape for a comeback. If it’s even true that his faction now includes Zionist sympathisers, it suggests he has become punch-drunk paranoid if not sliding into dementia like Trump.
If I’m given any vote it would go to Zarah Sultana. Watch her maiden speech to the Commons for a masterly socialist statement. She has youth, beauty and huge grasp of events, and will grow to be a very great leader. She has the perfect profile to make mincemeat of Reform if they stick to Nazi policies like deporting asylum seekers in “deals with people you may not want to go down the pub with”, like the Taliban.
The masses will vote for Reform (and be screwed over, again) and certainly won’t vote for a Muslim who may support uncontrolled immigration. You may not agree but IMO that’s the fact. The achilles heel of your party is immigration.
If they want to get into power they will need an agreed rock solid policy on immigration. TR was able to bring a huge number of people (voters) onto the streets, how will your party address that ?
TR? Don’t you mean SYL?
You mean like Benjamin Mileikowsky or John Bowman ? Schoolboy silliness don’t you think ?
SB … Plenty of folk, me included, reckon it is silly to keep using his stage name. He really isn’t “Tommy Robinson” and why you think it’s silly to deny that is truly baffling.
Seems to be okay for some and actors have used ‘stage names’ for ever, different rules for some eh ?. The rabid left just keep chipping away with their silliness, You carry on though, the agenda is clear.
Sorry, didn’t mean to diss your hero. I was merely trying to introduce some levity into what has been a very turgid thread.
Believe it or not, my real name isn’t Frank Hovis.
Frank, he’s not my hero and I’m aware he has some serious skeletons in his cupboard, however, I believe in free speech and equal rights for all. The regime hates him, so people need to ask why that might be. His treatment is hardly democratic.
Stevie, they will address TR’s ability to mobilise the masses by doubling down on unfettered, anyone-is-welcome, come-on-in-everyone, it’s-your-country-as-much-as-it-is-ours, immigration policy. It’s the Left’s way, which is why they’ll never ever be in power.
Stevie Boy.
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say I’m afraid.
At the root of most of this left behinded – ness is that all governments of all stripes have neglected the electorate in general.
This stems not from Thatcher but her forerunners Healey and Callaghan.
All thatcher did was allow some better off people to buy something they already owned ( Privatisation) and buy their Council House ( 30 +years old and in need of repair ) a get on the property ladder and rise to the glorious heights of a semi – detached before they die, as well as allowing the scum to borrow money in relatively large quantities from banks who would have spat on them 3 or 4 years previously ( Big Bang in The city of London).
Callaghan and Healey (an Ex Communist) imported Austerity to the UK from the US ) and Regan and Thatcher latched on to its Merits? later.
It was always to fight the ‘ greed ‘ of the workers with their anticipatory pay demands in the 70’s as their demands ate into the profits of The Corporates of their time.
To coin a phrase : There are different ways of skinning a cat and from then to now the politics and economics are the same just altered for the current times.
Austerity ( Neo – liberal economics is Class war as Chomsky rightly says ) but the Class War is one way traffic at this moment in time.
I don’t agree with the racists who follow Reform and I certainly don’t agree with Farage or any of his nostrums for how to solve the problems of Britain.
However: there are people who were promised the Earth by Thatcher and those who followed ( including Blair) and they ended up with not the Earth but a handful of dust as austerity ate into their incomes
Farage/Reform represents not the British but, the English British and only the Southern part of England ( largely excluding London). which ironically was a group of counties that benefited ( at the time of course) from The Thatcherite Miracle.
Some of the gloss has fallen off and in the so called ‘ Coastal Communities ‘ the wheels have fell off big style.
Now – I could forgive them their moan had they not consistently voted Tory since Thatcher started and after ( despite their decline ) still voting for Major Cameron and Johnson.
You can’t blame ‘ Woke ‘ lefties for the situation they find themselves in as those political grouping have been kept well away from power by the Powers That Be.
Which begs the question ( similarly for Trump and Farage)
If you want to make the US/ UK Great Again – who made it UNGREAT in the first place?
It wasn’t Corbyn – it wasn’t Sanders it wasn’ t Chavez or Maduro or Xi was it?
It was the pro Neo -liberal parties from Carter in the US to Thatcher in the UK and the governments that followed ncluding Blair and Brown.
So, I would suggest to the ‘ Left Behinder’s ‘ that most of the blame lies with you because, you kept voting to be left behind.
Unfortunately, nobody likes to admit to being wrong and Reform know this and may receive enough votes from the electorate who haven’t the guts to say I made a mistake.
Not just once but many times since Thatcher.
@Andy Wallace: You have no evidence that Trump has dementia let alone Corbyn who seems in pretty good shape for me. As for Sultana’s “youth and beauty” as you put it, beauty is a matter of opinion, and youth gives way to middle age followed by old age, unless the person remains forever young by virtue of an early death. You are merely displaying your own ageism, which appears now to be the only socially acceptable prejudice.
If you want to assess politicians on the basis of their looks, I should warn you there are far better looking women on the Far Right!