I am taking the plunge into Your Party. My worries remain about its centralist tendencies and lack of democracy, but I will work against those from within.
Your Party is not a unionist party. It does not yet have a policy on Scottish Independence. I shall of course be striving for it actively to support Scottish Independence. I feel fairly confident that this will succeed.
The Left in Scotland is overwhelmingly pro-Independence, just as the Right is overwhelmingly anti-Independence. There do exist Scottish unionist socialists, but they are a small and shrinking minority. It may turn out they are disproportionately represented in Your Party, but I do not believe that is likely to be the case.
More to the point, for years opinion polls have shown that at least a third of Scottish Labour voters support Independence. There is now a major and consistent gap in opinion polls between support for Independence – averaging around 52% – and support for the SNP – averaging around 31%. 21% of Scottish voters support Independence but will not vote for the SNP. That is a significant source of potential support for a viable alternative pro-Independence Party.
It is worth recalling that ten years ago support for the SNP and support for Independence were very tightly correlated. That is now absolutely not the case, for the simple reason the SNP pays no more than lip service to Independence.
A Corbyn-linked, pro-Independence Party in Scotland would have the capacity to destroy the Scottish branch of the Labour Party – which is already in deep trouble and polling around 15%.
There have been a number of attempts to provide a home for the Independence voters disillusioned with the SNP. The Scottish Greens currently show good polling figures, but they are a rather strange party, entirely separate from the English Greens, and far more interested in gender issues than in anything else.
I was a member of the Alba Party until the leadership made very plain I was unwanted, for reasons that don’t seem any more profound than their personal ambitions. While led by Alex Salmond, Alba was the obvious vehicle for Independence support, but since his demise it has torn itself apart. There are others – including the Independence for Scotland Party and Liberate Scotland – which contain some great people, but are currently very small.
Your Party can become a vehicle for a socialism that, as part of its universal commitment to anti-Imperialism, supports Independence for Scotland and Wales and supports the reunification of Ireland. I see that as a transformative position in British politics and a truly radical response to the need for fundamental change in the British state.
I might add that I have never heard Jeremy Corbyn express any personal opposition to Scottish Independence. He supports self-determination and anti-Imperialism around the globe and supports Irish reunification. I think those who note he did not support Scottish Independence whilst leader of the Labour Party are being obtuse. It was not the position of his party. He now has a different party, and I am very confident he would follow the party position.
The rather shadowy leadership cadre of Your Party is anxious to fudge the issue by adopting a policy of “the right of the Scottish people to decide”. This is basically to say that they support a second independence referendum. That is slightly useful, but it is a peculiar abnegation of responsibility – and very easy to say in the knowledge Westminster will not agree.
Of course the Scottish people have the right to decide. That must be the starting point for any socialist party. But that is not a policy. You might as well state that the people have the right to decide whether utilities should be renationalised. Of course they do. But our policy is to renationalise utilities.
A party that just says “we believe in the will of the people – whatever that may be. We don’t actually have an opinion” is not much of a political party.
Which leads me on to the question which I think is driving Your Party’s lack of discernible structured democracy and voting process so far: Israel.
The leadership seem desperate to avoid a commitment to a single state of Palestine, from the river to the sea. The reason for this is that Jeremy is still surrounded by the same group of “soft” zionists who wrecked his leadership of the Labour Party, by continually attempting to placate the zionist lobby through apology after apology. They committed expulsion after expulsion of lifelong antiracists and socialists.
The preferred formula of proponents within Your Party of the Bantustan two-state solution is: “Let the Palestinian people decide”. Often accompanied by the plausible-sounding “it is not for us to decide for the Palestinian people”.
The problem is of course the Palestinian people have a gun to their head. Literally. They have no free will to decide anything. And of which Palestinian people are you going to take the word? Universally reviled Abbas and the Palestinian Authority? Some US-installed puppet administration under the Gaza fake Peace Plan?
No. The only solution any socialist should support is a Palestine free, from the river to the sea. Then it should indeed be for the Palestinian people to decide. Within the free, secular, democratic state of Palestine for which we should strive – and which now has more support from the people of the world than ever. If the free people of Palestine voluntarily then decide to give some land for a Jewish ethno-state, so be it.
Finally, it seems to me that Your Party needs to support massive socio-economic change.
Late-stage capitalism has resulted in inequalities of wealth which are simply staggering. These are not the natural order of things. They are a result of deliberate, state-imposed structures, including the creation of currency within the banking system, the state paying banks interest on currency of which the state itself licensed the creation, taxation structures where the burden of payment falls upon the poor, enterprise ownership structures that promote wealth accumulation, and a housing market tending to ever-greater concentration of capital and the permanent subservience of working people to a landlord class.
The economic changes required are profound. The Greens have adopted one idea I have consistently promoted: limits on CEO pay and benefits relative to the workforce. They have I think suggested 10 x the average salary in the enterprise, whereas I suggested 8 x the lowest salary in the enterprise, but it is the same policy.
Rather to my amazement there was a really good editorial in the Observer yesterday suggesting some policies that directly start to tackle a number of the problems I have outlined, not least the state borrowing its own currency from the banks.
I used to favour a modified capitalism where share ownership lay largely with workers, but as states have evolved into far more complex financial systems where huge volumes of financial transactions do not relate to the purchase of goods and services, that approach is now only a small part of the answer, and the role of the state needs to increase. I am not sure I have quite finished reconciling this with my libertarian instincts, nor yet fully integrated those parts of modern monetary theory which are self-evidently true. But I am working on it.
To return to Your Party, I profoundly distrust the “Assemble” model of meetings split up into little groups. These avoid votes or any genuine effort to actually determine the will of the meeting. Instead they give the power of divining the “consensus” to unseen central figures. I have been told this system combats patriarchalism. That is obvious nonsense – I am pretty sure you will find patriarchs behind the curtains, dictating what was “decided” by the touchy-feely groups. And if they are matriarchs, that would be no better.
The national Conference is to be on the basis of sortition. The key question is this: Who gets to be there without going through the sortition process? How many and who are they? That seems to me essential to know. I have already seen direct evidence that a very large number of the little political groups who are dictating matters behind the scenes will avoid sortition by being present as “stewards”. As though stewards could not have been forthcoming from among those selected by sortition.
There are also officially going to be “VIPs” not subject to sortition. Who chooses them? Will a list be published?
The sortition itself, according to the documents circulated to members, will be fixed to make sure groups are fairly represented. What sort of groups? Ethnic? Gender? Political? This undermines the entire basis of sortition itself.
I have the deepest possible reservations about the manipulation of “democracy” within Your Party. But there are bound to be teething troubles at the start, and while there is plainly a huge amount of plotting for control, I don’t see anything we the members – and I am now one – cannot sweep aside as we get the party going.
———————————
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
Craig is Correct..the SNP are Useless…and The MSM are Evil –
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1246245990872100&set=a.464464655716908
The future for your party in Scotland will be determined what they envisage and express in policies.
Who will make this decision, i.e. the membership, or a collection of MP’s around Jeremy with their own personal agendas, as much as some ex Jack Straw ‘helpers’ who have managed to interfere in Blackburn’s last election there to the detriment of voters.
I shall hold back and await the outcome of a inaugural conference which should have members voting on policies and formulating a manifesto that speaks of peace, economic and environmental restructuring, as much as of electoral reform and the dereliction of democracy by so called lawful means.
I have not been to the regional conference here in Norfolk as I had a pre organised large community event on that weekend, but reports by the local media on this event were scarce and short.
I hope that the rift between Zarah Sultana and her muslim colleague MP’s will be sorted out amicably before an election looms.
Previous posters are right “Your Party” is an awful name reminiscent of the patronising internal bodies set up by large corporates “so that your voice may be heard, dear employee”. Heard then disregarded of course.
I think few would disagree that the UK is in a gigantic fragile mess economically and in many other ways. My focus as a UK resident is to vote for someone who credibly promises to fix that. It’s all I care about. I don’t understand why it’s always about distant foreign countries – why should it be such a negative that “Your Party” have no identifiable policy position on Palestine? I’m sure they don’t have a firm position on Taiwan or Bangladesh either.
“Distant foreign countries” committing genocide with the active support of the government of the UK, which has classified peaceful protest against their policy as “terrorism”, is about to lock up hundreds of grannies for it, and is bending over backwards to overrule the police and invite violent racist Israeli soccer hooligans to come over here to run riot in Birmingham. Now do you understand? What was stopping you?
Forty and 50 years ago, no leftwing party had a problem opposing ethnic (or “ethno-religious”) qualification at the ballot box and colonialism.
“We are for an end to the ethnic supremacist and terrorist settler state known as ‘Israel’ and we will criminalise acts of support for it. We will withdraw de jure and de facto recognition. We are for the creation of a state of Palestine with sovereignty from the river to the sea.”
Ask the Red Cross to step in to mediate in e.g. assisting British citizens in Occupation jails. As regards ‘Israelis’ in British jails, if there are any, send their details to the consulates of whichever country they’ve got legitimate citizenship or citizenship rights in. If they go mental over it, send their details to the UN, which has schemes to assist the stateless.
Don’t let anyone say de-recognising ‘Israeli’ documents is unfeasible.
Humanitarianism, yes. Platform for fascist terrorists, no.
Slightly off-topic, but here is a video of former Turkmen dictator Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow (father of the current dictator) lifting a long gold bar in a way that’s reminiscent of Elon Musk brandishing the chainsaw on stage with Javier Milei of Argentina:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Pduhdgkjk
ISTR Musk carried a sink through the front door at Twitter when he (with borrowed money) acquired that company – with all the “digital bros” thinking he was so cool because carrying a sink means “let that sink in”, har har. (There’s a reason why digital bros are so f***ing boring and pathetic in their humour, and seem so emotionally stunted.)
In other news, Mao Zedong swam across the Yangtse river.
” … Finally, it seems to me that Your Party needs to support massive socio-economic change. … The economic changes required are profound.”
This country, the UK, is undeniably in a dreadful, wretched state. And worse still, it is sinking fast under this ludicrous government.
Forty five years of neoliberalism, a banking crash, fifteen years of austerity economics and Starmer’s number one policy is (along with the EU) to go to war with Russia. This, after having provided full-throated support for genocide in Palestine.
Let me say that again – Starmer’s number one policy: is to go to war with Russia. Yes, our “leaders” are clinically and criminally insane.
I recently walked along London’s Oxford Street. Walking form Marble Arch to Selfridges, a walk of about 5-10 minutes, I counted seven unoccupied store fronts – empty shells. This, on the supposedly top retail street in the country. The story around the rest of the country is equally bad if not worse. High streets everywhere full of charity, second hand and boarded up shops.
Our economy is in a terrible state and neither the government nor any of the other established parties offers even an attempt at a solution.
Profound economic reform and renewal is indeed required.
Our democracy is equally in a state of corrupt disrepair and disintegration.
Starmer won a record ‘landslide’ of seats at the last election on a record low vote. He ‘achieved’ his leadership of the Labour Party on a total pack of lies. The man, the PM of the UK, is a total fraud. He most certainly did not include war with Russia in either of his election manifestos. And were he to ask the country what it thought of such a thing I think we all know what the resounding answer would be.
None of the three main established parties can currently muster 20% of public support, all of them being on around 17% according to Yougov. Appallingly this leaves Farage with a free run for Downing Street on around 30%.
Around 2000 people are currently charged with terrorism offences, possibly facing prison, for peacefully demonstrating against genocide and outrageous legislation.
Profound democratic reform and renewal (perhaps a new democratic constitution for the UK?) is required.
Our government’s current foreign policy includes, though increasingly surreptitiously, support for Israel’s genocidal state and it’s genocide of the Palestinians. It also includes involvement in the US proxy war against Russia, and then, as America withdraws, full-on war with Russia in the near future. Need I say more?
Foreign policy reform and renewal is urgently required.
Our mainstream media is thoroughly rotten. This is to be expected from the press, but the BBC’s news and current affairs output is now, to all intents and purposes, imo, unwatchable and unlistenable. I still occasionally switch on R4’s Today programme to get the daily news agenda but to have to listen to Robinson, Barnett, Webb and Foster – Amol Rajan is just about tolerable given obvious limitations – spout their slanted nonsense is close to unbearable. And of course Kuenssberg, formerly surely the most unashamedly biassed political editor in the BBC’s history, continues to strutt her unreconstructed stuff in the prime Sunday morning slot.
The BBC currently receives close to £4bn (billion) from the public to provide public service broadcasting (PSB). Four billion pounds. (£3.843bn to be precise, acc to Google AI.) Trustworthy news and current affairs is an absolutely essential element of any democracy, and is one of the sacred elements of PSB but in this regard the BBC is currently providing a gross public disservice.
At the 2019 general election, in his Alternative Mactaggart Lecture, Jeremy Corbyn set out the beginnings of a bold policy for democratic reform of the BBC. It is well worth revisiting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYy7EATHhQ
Profound BBC renewal and reform is indeed required.
Any new party seeking to address the problems that this country faces, that the entire current political and media classes ignore, neglect, contribute to or cause, must address all of these issues and more head-on.
I humbly suggest that democratic and economic renewal should be at the heart, and front and centre of the new party’s identity and agenda.
Get it right and I believe they will win the next general election.
Good lecture on the media (by Jeremy Corbyn), worth listening to by any party. But it also strengthens the case for YP, since he’s one of the leaders – though I’m uneasy about the idea of him being surrounded by vested interests which might make democratic discussions within the party more difficult.
“Forty five years of neoliberalism, a banking crash, fifteen years of austerity economics and Starmer’s number one policy is (along with the EU) to go to war with Russia. ”
It’s very probable that there will be another banking crash next year, worse than 2008, all the signs are there and it’s the end of the eighteen year boom-bust cycle. What’s the betting that, even so, Starmer’s two top priorities will be helping Israel kill Palestinians and going to war with a nuclear-armed country that has more corvettes in its navy than his country has commissioned ships*, not to mention the other armed services?
*and that’s even if you count “HMS” Victory.
Bayard
October 29, 2025 at 22:14
I’m not English (happily) but it is IMO ridiculous to claim that England (or France or Germany) have a #1 policy of going to war with Russia.
You are equating standing up to Russian aggression with a desire to go to war with Russia.
Presumably in 1939 you’d have urged Chamberlain not to go to war with Nazi Germany?
@ JK redux
Mr Kinsella I presume, judging by moniker, style and content.
Would I be right?
Pears not with you today?
Peter
October 30, 2025 at 16:47
Is that you Peter?
A vacuous post, not your normal style.
You *are* Mr Peter Doxer?
@ JK redux
Thanks for your reply, that’s very funny.
Yes, I am Peter, but not that other one.
I didn’t mean to be arch, or to pry, i just wanted to be sure you are who you appear to be before responding to your reply to Bayard – which is, in effect, a reply to me also.
If you are who you appear to be, then we have exchanged several comments in the past and it would be good to be sure before responding again. If you are not who I presumed then I sincerely apologise profusely.
Care to share?
Peter
October 30, 2025 at 17:46
Our host permits anonymous posting – I notice that you don’t identify yourself so it is unreasonable of you to invite me to do the same.
I expect that your arguments will not be undermined even if addressed to a poster cloaked in the same anonymity that you choose to adopt.
@ JK redux
Ok, point made, sit back.
About 2-3 years ago I recall responding on this site to a comment by someone going by the name of John Kinsella, a regular poster at the time and for sometime after, whose line of thought and style of writing was very similar, in fact virtually identical, to your own. If memory serves, it was in relation to the Chilean-American journalist, subsequently murdered by the Ukrainian regime, Gonzalo Lira. I began my comment with words to the effect that, despite evidence to the contrary, I would respond to you assuming you were commenting in good faith.
So here’s the thing. Both Mr Kinsella’s and your own history of commenting on this site strongly suggest you are not acting in good faith at all but do so from some other ulterior motive. I really don’t wish to be offensive but the errors in your apparent perception and line of thought have been pointed out to you such innumerable times it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion.
You say ” … it is IMO ridiculous to claim that England (or France or Germany) have a #1 policy of going to war with Russia.”
It is, sadly, very far from ridiculous. It is, of course, utterly ridiculous, unbelievably so, to be pursuing such a course. Especially so when you take into account the dilapidated state of the British military, yet here we are. You are of course welcome to your own opinion but I find it hard to believe you are paying such little attention to international affairs of such huge importance. Starmer puts more time and effort into his lamentable “coalition of the willing” than he does anything else, and appears to regard nothing so important as war with Russia. Thought or talk of peace doesn’t figure. The EU is, if anything, even more so inclined. Von Der Leyen, Macron and Mertz apparently have little time for anything else. Mertz saying Germans must be ready for war with Russia within two years and has even told German women that they must be prepared to “sacrifice their sons”.
You complain to Bayard that: “You are equating standing up to Russian aggression with a desire to go to war with Russia.”
Quite apart from the erroneous premise at the heart of that comment you are drawing a distinction without a difference.
The aggression in Ukraine does not originate in Moscow. This war was planned, designed, engineered and executed from Washington – as has been pointed out and evidenced to you, as I say, innumerable times.
The conflict began, not in February ’22, but in 2014 when the US orchestrated the illegal overthrow of the democratically elected government and replaced it with fiercely anti-Russian junta which included real-life, Russia-hating, Hitler-loving neo-nazis who began straight away instituting anti-Russian legislation.
John Mearsheimer pointed out that the US was heading for war with Russia, via Ukraine, back in 2014 in his now famous article “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault” in Foreign Affairs journal (Sept/Oct 2014, Volume 93 Number 5). William J Burns, the then US Ambassador to Russia, later head of the CIA, had already pointed out to the US government in February 2008 in his, now famous, memo “Nyet Means Nyet” (No Means No) the grave error of seeking to extend Nato into Ukraine. Further still, the policy of aggression against Russia using Ukraine was detailed in the Rand Corporation policy document “Extending Russia” of April 24th 2019.
The pressure to extend Nato into Ukraine came not from Ukraine but from the US. They were warned numerous times by top academics and former politicians, statesmen and stateswomen about what would happen, even the Pope later acknowledged he thought the conflict was “provoked”, but they chose to ignore the warnings because they wanted the conflict, caring nothing about what it would cost in terms of Ukrainian lives.
The idea that Russia would accept Nato in Ukraine doesn’t stand up to a minute’s scrutiny or reason. Nato essentially means America, and the idea that Russia could accept American missiles on its border is absurd. Just as absurd as expecting the US to accept Russian or Chinese missiles on its border. I/we would not accept Russian or Chinese missiles on the North coast of France and I presume you, JK redux, would not accept Russian or Chinese missiles on the border of your country. Not hard to understand.
To add to this, Russia has three times faced a full-scale invasion by the west, with huge loss of life, through Ukraine. Firstly by Napoleon, then by combined western forces against the Russian revolution, and thirdly, of course, by Nazi Germany. Expecting Russia to accept American missiles at it’s border can only be described as extremely ignorant. But then that ignorance is, of course manufactured and nurtured by complicit western media.
Further, the notion that Russia wanted the war simply ignores the evidence, and the proposition that they will take Ukraine then overrun the rest of Europe is utterly for the bird-brained.
Russia and Putin tried at least five documented times to avoid the conflict. The Geneva Communique of 2014 was the first failure. Minsks 1 and 2 were equally, ostensibly, designed to avoid conflict but failed. In December ’21 Putin sent a proposal to to the US and to Nato to create a new defence architecture that would guarantee peace and security across the whole of Europe. The US responded, and treated it, with contempt. Why would they do such a thing to something that would be to the huge benefit of all? See above.
Merkel and Hollande, signatories to and guarantors of the UN backed Minsks 1&2, later acknowledged that they had had no intention of abiding by the agreements but instead used the time gained to prepare for war.
Russia and Putin tried one last (5th) time to avoid conflict, albeit shortly after it had started, when in March and April of ’22 they negotiated a peace deal with Ukraine. Agreement was reached and a draft peace deal was signed by both sides. Further proof if it was needed that this was not a land-grab by Russia but a concern for its own national security. Had the peace deal been adhered to Ukraine would today still have the same borders and territory that it did at the end of ’21. But, of course, that was not acceptable to the US. Conflict was necessary, so they sent Boris Johnson to scotch the peace deal and he duly complied, the results of which he will have to live with for the rest of his life.
But then you know all that don’t you John, sorry, I mean JK redux? So, despite my best efforts to alleviate you of your erroneous mindset one more time, I expect you will reject it all and come back with some Putinbot, aggression appeaser, Munich Chamberlain comment or something of the like.
I notice Pears, your partner in rhyme, has arrived to provide back-up. He (or she?) always used to turn up with John Kinsella too strangely enough. I sometimes wonder if you’re the same person. Or people.
Anyways, sorry to go on for so long but the issues are complicated. I assure you I mean no offence. Like the overwhelming majority here I just seek truth, peace and prosperity for all.
Cheers.
Peter @ October 31, 2025 at 16:22 :
Great post, very good summary of where we are and how we got here. I wouldn’t expect a completely sincere reply, though.
” Russia and Putin tried one last (5th) time to avoid conflict, albeit shortly after it had started, when in March and April of ’22 they negotiated a peace deal with Ukraine. Agreement was reached and a draft peace deal was signed by both sides. Further proof if it was needed that this was not a land-grab by Russia but a concern for its own national security. Had the peace deal been adhered to Ukraine would today still have the same borders and territory that it did at the end of ’21. But, of course, that was not acceptable to the US. Conflict was necessary, so they sent Boris Johnson to scotch the peace deal and he duly complied, the results of which he will have to live with for the rest of his life. ”
Sorry but that is completely untrue. The treaty was rejected by Ukraine because it would’ve allowed Russia to keep the areas it had already occupied. This was completely unacceptable. News had also come through about the massacres in Bucha and Borodianka (please don’t waste everyone’s time by claiming they were ‘false flags’. They weren’t and there’s proof that they weren’t.)
For the record I’m not ‘JK Redux’, He doesn’t really need my help or indeed anybody’s.
@ Pears Morgaine
Hello Pears,
You say:
“Sorry but that is completely untrue. The treaty was rejected by Ukraine because it would’ve allowed Russia to keep the areas it had already occupied.”
Do you have a source for that?
My understanding is that there were several rounds of peace negotiations, at least five, between Russia and Ukraine from March to April 2022 and, Crimea aside, none of them included Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory. Initially Russia sought only independence for Donetsk and Luhansk. In the latter rounds, including the ‘Istanbul Draft’ of April 2022, they agreed to accept the early February 2022 borders of Ukraine, pending discussion of ‘certain areas’ of Donetsk and Luhansk. Even the status of Crimea would be put on hold, left neutral, for further discussion over the ensuing 10-15 years.
Acceptance of something along those lines would have lead to a staged Russian withdrawal and over a million people would still be alive.
Origin of the Bucha killings is, of course, widely contested. There’s always ‘proof’ for everything in wars. How do you explain the white rags tied to the bodies? Let me guess – reverse false flag?
Thanks for the clarification regarding your relationship with ‘JK redux’.
” Do you have a source for that? ”
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-the-idea-that-kyiv-should-have-signed-a-peace-deal-in-2022-is-flawed-heres-why-250423
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/reconstructing-istanbul-accords-208818
” How do you explain the white rags tied to the bodies? ”
Some of those murdered had their hands tied with white tape. As the Russians were using this to identify themselves they must’ve had a lot of it to hand. If anything it’s further proof that they were responsible. There’s also the fact that the bodies were visible on satellite photos, which also identified a mass grave containing over 300 bodies, before Ukrainian forces re-took the area.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60981238
@ Pears Morgaine
The articles you link to, even on their own terms, are textbook cases of ex post facto western historical revision. Anyone who rejects outright the unimpeachable work of Alastair Crooke, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate is, and should be, instantly dismissible. The Istanbul Accords were not “a phantom”.
Following Russian-Ukrainian negotiations throughout March 2022 the Istanbul Communique was signed by both sides at the end of March.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ba6c7377883d7829/f5aff231-full.pdf
The communique provided the basis for a treaty, and discussions were progressing well until Boris Johnson turned up in mid-April and duly, willingly and successfully carried out his master’s orders to put paid to the negotiations:
“Top Ukrainian politician and presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych added a seventh confirmation that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine was agreed in principle in March 2022 that was later shot down by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.”
https://www.intellinews.com/top-ukrainian-politician-oleksiy-arestovych-gives-seventh-confirmation-of-russia-ukraine-peace-deal-agreed-in-march-2022-302876/
The subsequent Istanbul Draft Treaty of April 15th 2022 was therefore never signed and, to paraphrase Barak Obama, this dumbest of all dumb wars continues to this day leaving, as I said above, totally unnecessarily, almost certainly over one million people dead. I hope Boris Johnson and his psychopath neocon backers are proud of themselves. Although, tbf, I doubt he is, he will have to live with that for the rest of his days. I am pretty sure that they are though, it’s their way of doing things.
No doubt, like your tag-team partner ‘JK redux’, you will want to reject all that but I will leave it to the readers to make up their own, very capable, minds from there.
Nuff said.
“You are equating standing up to Russian aggression with a desire to go to war with Russia”
Only in your eyes. Perhaps you would like to explain why the UK needs to “stand up to Russian aggression”, when it is not aggression against the UK and Ireland feels no such need.
.”Presumably in 1939 you’d have urged Chamberlain not to go to war with Nazi Germany?”
What benefit did the UK gain from WWII to set against all the costs of that war?
Ireland supports using seized Russian assets to fund Ukraine.
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/23/ireland-backs-plan-to-use-sanctioned-russian-assets-to-fund-ukraine-loan/
” Ireland not a ‘safe haven’ against the growing threat Russian posed to Europe. ”
” What benefit did the UK gain from WWII to set against all the costs of that war? ”
You think the UK would’ve been better off surrendering to the Nazis?
Craig, Your Party is lucky to have you on board. Your intelligent insights should be welcomed and attention paid to your thoughtful suggestions. I’ve also joined Your Party because I feel Corbyn never stood a chance as the leader of the fossilised rump of the post-Blair Labour Party. Nevertheless, I have misgivings and hope that serious errors can be resolved before the new party is hatched.