Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Members decide party policy (local level and national level are different, but let’s ignore that for now), but councilors still need to serve their constituents, they are not and should not be automatons slavishly following the party machine on every single vote.
Sultana has always been individually minded, it’s one of her strengths. That’s the irony.
That’s the irony.
Oh no it isn't...
they are not and should not be automatons slavishly following the party machine on every single vote.
Party machine? We are talking about party policy, and that rule applies to Green MPs as well as Green councillors. What is the point of allowing party members to decide party policy if it can be simply ignored whenever a Green MP or councillor fancies? None, I would suggest.
And I have no idea why you are suggesting Zahra Sultana wouldn't toe the party line, she will have to, even if she is leader. Quite right too.
Sultana had the Labour whip removed not because she went against Labour Party policy but because she went against the policy of Keir Starmer/Morgan McSweeney/Rachel Reeves to keep the Tory child benefit policy
The UK political situation would not be so absolutely dire today (unless you are a Reform supporter) if the Labour leader wasn't allowed to totally ignore the party membership. How many party members (what's left of them) support the policies of the current Labour government? Do you not think there are lessons to be learnt? The power and control of the party leader is grotesque.
That’s the irony.
Oh no it isn't...
Oh it is. Zahra Sultana had the Labour whip removed because she refused to support a very Tory policy.
You don't get much more ironic than that.
You don't get much more ironic than that.
You do if...
It's behind you...
Yes Green Party members decide party policy but when it comes to putting policy into actual practice Green councillors and MPs can simply ignore the Green Party policy and use their own judgement to vote however they fancy.
So MP's and councillors vote for what is best for their constituents who returned them into power, or what their green principles suggest is the correct course of action.
Sounds ****ing great to be honest. I'd definitely vote for that.
So MP's and councillors vote for what is best for their constituents who returned them into power,
Brilliant!......so Green MPs and councillors don't necessarily believe that Green Party policies are the best for the constituents!!!!!!!!! Hahahaha hahahaha🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
Brilliant!......so Green MPs and councillors don't necessarily believe that Green Party policies are the best for the constituents!!!!!!!!! Hahahaha hahahaha🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
If you are going to have a FPTP system then it's really the only way a party should be run.
With FPTP, your constituents are voting for YOU to represent them. Your first loyalty should be to your constituents, not the party.
There is a difference between a policy and the implementation of a policy. A policy should be a goal and a rough idea of how to actually achieve it. The more concrete your implementation plan the more likely it is to fall apart when it comes face to face with reality
As an MP or councillor you shouldn't be afraid to go against the implementation of policies if they are going to disproportionally harm your constituents.
Or we could just ditch FPTP.
Apparently the most heard adjective on the doorsteps of Caerphilly during the recent by -election campaign was the word "betrayal". Indeed a sense of betrayal goes to the very heart of the unprecedented collapse of support for the Labour government nationally. It would appear some people have learnt nothing.
And it begs two questions, firstly how do you expect to convince voters that your party's policies are the correct ones if you can't even convince yourself?
Secondly what is the actual point of a general election manifestos if when elected they are simply ignored?
The Green Party should stop spouting this nonsense that " members decide policy" when in reality it is anyone who wins an election who decides policy.
May be better if all MPs were independent forcing the constituents to actually pick MPs who they think are most capable of representing their area rather then the party they represent. Would need a central committee who gather policy ideas and those polices get voted in/out by the MPs. Ministers would be chosen based on the skills of the MPs .
A society where all political parties were banned would be excellent imo, and perhaps one day that will be achieved. But until human society reaches that level of development we have to deal with the reality as it presently exists.
It's very illustrative that Sultana is spending her time slagging off the Green party rather than Labour and the Tories. Honestly these idiots just can't help themselves can they? Where is binners when we need him?
Hi!
I’ll tell you what… they’re a litigious lot, these lefties, aren’t they? They’re taking out lawsuits faster than Donald Trump.
Who'd have thunk it that Jeremy Corbyn would end up as the toast of the London legal profession? 😂
It's very illustrative that Sultana is spending her time slagging off the Green party rather than Labour and the Tories.
Yep, as I said yesterday, she is not going to get anywhere and neither is Corbyn. Not sure another Left party is really even needed if the Green Party carry on going in the direction they are.
It's very illustrative that Sultana is spending her time slagging off the Green party rather than Labour and the Tories
Greens ahead of both in latest polling.
So it comes to all left / centre parties to stand aside now. 😉 Tactically we all need to get behind them now otherwise we might let Labour back in.
Good grief.
That all changed yesterday. Feinstein et al persuaded Sultana to take over the company so they could get the hell away from it, that party, and all the internal squabbling.
Good grief.
Marching on to the revolution, one lawsuit at a time. 🙂
Honestly it's this sort of shite that stopped me ever getting involved in organised party politics whether it was the socialist workers or the labour party.
That lawsuits article needs to be viewed in conjunction with this one - just to complete the Your Party masterful media experience:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv8j231yv7o
That lawsuits article needs to be viewed in conjunction with this one
Nah, there's nowt wrong with politicians not taking things too seriously and being able to laugh at themselves. How much more leeway do we think Starmer and Reeves would get if they weren't such humourless, dour-faced patronising technocrats? Voters want their politicians to be real people, not emotionally stilted automatons.
It's very illustrative that Sultana is spending her time slagging off the Green party rather than Labour and the Tories.
I don't know what you have been hearing but I listened to Sultana speaking locally for the best part of a couple of hours on Wednesday and she didn't seem particularly interested in slagging off the Green Party, Labour, or even the Tories really. The only Party that she probably singled out for extensive criticism was Reform.
Her main thrust was to make the case for YP, although her audience were broadly sympathetic with any dissent not actually hostile. It was an open meeting and a Green Party member who was some sort of regional organiser (I can't remember what) was allowed his 2 minutes in front of the mic.
I know a couple of Green Party members locally and they actually welcome the formation of YP because they see it as part of the movement for social justice, anti-fascist, and solidarity with Palestine. The Green Party locally has a few observant Muslims but the predominantly Muslim areas of the borough are not fertile ground for them, it will be for YP though. There is no doubt that there will be an electoral agreement for next year's local elections, whether it's formal or not.
I know that because of the overbearing role of party leaders in the Tory, Labour, and Reform, parties, there is an obsessive fixation on the role of party leaders in all parties. However I am mostly unbothered concerning who leads YP although I do think that Corbyn probably needs to spend more time on his allotment, because let's face it if it hadn't been for Keir Starmer he would today undoubtedly be sitting on the Labour backbenches.
The only reason Corbyn reluctantly threw his weight behind YP was because Starmer robbed him of his party. Sultana is young and inexperienced but I suspect that she will improve in time, she is certainly smart.
Locally YP has shown itself to be able to organise very effectively without any need of involvement from a central leadership. This is due to the huge wealth of experience it has within its ranks, mostly from the Labour Trade Union movement. Three very large meetings have been held now, the first two were called by and chaired by very elderly long-term activists but Wednesday's meeting was organised and chaired by young black women.
Nah, there's nowt wrong with politicians not taking things too seriously and being able to laugh at themselves.
Generally I would agree, and was listening to a piece on Radio 4 yesterday saying similar, but in the case when Corbyn's political life is a bigger ****ing pantomime than the Islington Am Dram Christmas production, the optics are hilarious. 🤣
Corbyn's political life is a bigger *ing pantomime than the Islington Am Dram Christmas production,
I reckon that the voters of Islington North might agree with you. They have elected Corbyn to represent them in the House of Commons, continuously without any interruptions, for 42 years!
And no, it isn't simply because he is the Labour candidate, it is in fact personal.
I don't think there is another politician in the whole of the country that has that level of personal support.
So yeah, Corbyn's political life is a bigger *ing pantomime ! 🤣
Edit. Blimey what's with the red text? I certainly didn't get the paintbox out!
This stuff about "separate pots of money" is all very weird.
What Sultana is saying - that she shouldn't drain the company of assets without being sure it can cover its costs before being wound down - isn't that nuts...but just goes to emphasise why you shouldn't go around gathering money from people without being clear on whose money it is and what it's going to be used for.
⬆️ Not a pantomime?
"She's behind you!"
"Oh no she's not!"
What a bunch of clowns. Should rebrand as the Chocolate Teapot party.
What a grift though?
Imagine being daft enough to send money to an organisation with no name, run by Laurel or Hardy, if they can eventually decide which one is El Presidente, to no doubt end up being spent on legal fees as they take each other to court?
I don't think there is another politician in the whole of the country that has that level of personal support.
Yep, his constituents are clearly happy with what he does for them and I probably would be to as he seems to genuinely care and is an MP for the right reasons.
That doesn't mean he can lead a party of deal with modern media etc,. so should really just stick to being an MP. That is probably the case for most MPs but due to the ridiculous way government works you have to be an MP of the current government to hold important roles (PM, CHancellor, Home Secretary etc,.) whether you are the best person to do that role for the country or not
Spot on Kerley. We had a Tory MP a few parliaments ago, and although I couldn't subscribe to his party policies, he was a good MP for his constituents.
I don't think there is another politician in the whole of the country that has that level of personal support.
due to the ridiculous way government works you have to be an MP of the current government to hold important roles (PM, CHancellor, Home Secretary etc,.) whether you are the best person to do that role for the country or not
I mean - if you want a Presidential system where the leader can just appoint anyone to a role regardless if they're elected or not...
Are they're suggesting MPs of other parties could/should be involved in government, not just those in the party with a majority of seats? That is people that are elected to their seat serving in government posts. Lucas would probably have made a great minister.
That doesn't mean he can lead a party of deal with modern media etc,. so should really just stick to being an MP.
I totally agree. The point is that on a personal level Corbyn is more popular than the current leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer, and he is apparently the most popular high profile politician among young people, (although I am willing to accept that since Zack Polanski became GP leader that might no longer be the case)
But you would never think that if you listened to some of the stuff spouted on here.
Are they're suggesting MPs of other parties could/should be involved in government, not just those in the party with a majority of seats?
They can already be. But why would you appoint someone to a position when you disagree with them on fundamental political issues - because if you didn't, you'd already be members of the same party. This is the same weird logic as "why isn't Corbyn or Sultana a Green?"
Also, It's not a law or rule, but merely a convention that most ministers should be MPs. And a few ministers have been Lords, so in the legislature but unelected.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/lords-ministers-role-scrutiny
And technically you could have non-parliamentary ministers.
My point is that if I was the PM I would want to be able to choose the best people for the roles and those best people would most probably not be MPs in my party. Yes they would need to be mostly in agreement with the parties policies but it means I wouldn't end up having to choose Reeves, Nandy, Streeting and so on, I could actually pick more competent people.
That is a presidential approach.
Anyway - off topic for a thread on Your Party.
This is odd - not Corbyn's anti-Zionism (which is hardly a surprise once he moved his arse off the fence), but the fact that on one hand, all this deliberation and collective decision making is supposed to be ensuring that Your Party's platform is democratically made. And then on the other hand, Corbyn feels comfortable saying off the cuff "by the way, this is our simple policy on this nuanced issue". 🤷♂️
on this nuanced issue
Zionism might be a "nuanced issue" for the Labour Party, in the same way as common ownership is, but I really don't think that it will be a nuanced issue at all for the overwhelming majority of YP party members. Zionism is an expansionist apartheid ideology, as the whole world has seen, which is very much at odds with a party committed peace and justice.
Whilst the feasibility of a one-state solution might have been questionable before the Gaza Genocide (I certainly questioned it) the behaviour of the zionist state over the last couple of years has proved beyond doubt that it is the only possible solution. Zionism, justice, and peace, are very clearly incompatible.
Jeremy Corbyn has simply woken up and read the room. It won't have been the first time that Zahra Sultana has forced a very reluctant and dithering Corbyn to make his mind up, get off the ****ing fence, and take a firm position. Corbyn spent too long in the Labour Party trying to appease people at odds with all his fundamental core beliefs, it's in his DNA. Sultana on the other hand hasn't got time for sll that nonsense, she recognises the urgency of the situation.
So... party policy to be set by members, and then their representatives on councils and in parliament to stick doggedly to those policies even if it conflicts with the views of their constituents (or their own)... or... policy set by one or two key players (just don't call them leaders)? Which is it?
What are you talking about, that is how Western liberal democracies work. Political parties produce election manifestos and voters vote for the candidates that represent the party whose policies they most agree with.
It all starts to fall apart when governments abandon their election pledges and don't do what they claimed they would do. This in fact is the fundamental cause of the political crisis currently facing Western liberal democracies.
I see you didn't address the question at all.
Well it is obvious that policy isn't "set by one or two key players" in a democratic organisation. Although I am happy to accept that is the case with the Tory, Labour, and Reform, parties.
On the specific issue of zionism, which was the issue raised, I think that falls into the category of founding aims and principles, like socialism and common ownership. As I said previously I think zionism is very much at odds with a party committed to peace and justice.
Obviously if the membership disagrees they will be able to modify policies to fall in line with the majority but I am confident that they won't disagree The situation in Gaza requires established policies right now, today's news is that Israel has destroyed over 1500 buildings since the peace deal in areas of Gaza which it controls. Destroying the homes, schools, universities, hospitals, etc, is a vital tactic of any genocide against a people.
Israel hasn't stopped its genocide against the Palestinian people so I am very glad that Zahra Sultana has forced Jeremy Corbyn to get off the fence and take a clear position.
So much for the lofty aims of operating beyond the way the Green Party (ofE&W) works then. For the record, I consider the Greens to be very democratic in how they set and commutate their policies, and how their councillors and MPs act on policy. Now look back at the last two pages of this thread...
One of the MPs* has now quit the “party” because of "persistent infighting, factionalism and a struggle for power".
[ *no, not one of those two ]
Well it is obvious that policy isn't "set by one or two key players" in a democratic organisation
Are they all individuals? 😉
Glad to hear that Mr Hussein has worked out which of the two different entities he had to notify in order to quit..
Meanwhile:
Allies of Mr Corbyn point to his experience as Labour leader
"If I can lead Labour to electoral defeat twice, I can certainly take Your Party to electoral defeat"?
One of the MPs* has now quit the “party” because of "persistent infighting, factionalism and a struggle for power".
That is the reason being given, yes. But he has previously made it clear that he could not support a left-wing socialist party.
The root cause of the friction between the likes of Adnan Hussain and Zahra Sultana is that Sultana is totally committed to a socialist alternative, something which is very much at odds with Hussain's rather conservative views, including it is alleged with regards to women.
Hussain stood at the last general election and won his seat purely in opposition to Labour's pro-Israeli stance in face of an ongoing Gaza Genocide. As someone who has been involved in the Palestine solidarity movement over the last two years I can assure you that the movement brings together an astonishing range of people, from very conservative Muslims to openly LGBTQ+ individuals.
You don't have to have a certain political ideology to be strongly opposed to genocide. Adnan Hussain and Zahra Sultana have very little in common beyond their passionate opposition to the mass murder of Palestinians.
I suspect that Adnan Hussain read the room and realised that YP was never going to be the sort of socially conservative party which he would be comfortable with, and as someone who makes money out of property rental market he was almost certainly alarmed by some of the likely policies of the new left-wing party.
His resignation means one less obstacle for Zahra Sultana to have to deal with as she tries to build a real alternative to conservatism. I welcome it.
Oh come on Ernie, stop trying to defend the indefensible. Your Party is making the government look coherent, stable and competent. Your Party have been a bitter joke since they first appeared and will soon slide into oblivion as they continue to fall out with each other. I see Zahra is still hanging onto £600k, she's making Boris look like a beacon of fiscal responsibility.
Oh come on Ernie, stop trying to defend the indefensible.
I wasn't aware that I was "defending" anything, let alone the indefensible. How have you come to that conclusion?
I have simply pointed out that someone with rather conservative views like Adnan Hussain was never going to be very happy in a radical left-wing party, are you actually disputing that?
The only reason that Adnan Hussain is currently an MP is because of Labour's support for a genocidal and criminal regime, not because he is a socialist.
Adnan Hussain was only ever in the picture because of the alliance which the independent MPs formed in parliament and Corbyn's leading role in that alliance.
she's making Boris look like a beacon of fiscal responsibility
Well I take it that you won't be voting for YP then. Which is fine btw because it isn't aimed at you. It isn't even aimed at the majority of the electorate. It is aimed at perhaps 10-15% of the electorate, initially at least.
And that is a perfectly good strategy because all the indications suggest that the days of majority governments in the UK are over. The very latest opinion poll puts the combined Tory-Labour vote at 31% which is less than Labour polled at the last general election.
A party with a couple of dozen seats in an era of coalition governments can have a significant clout. Wake up to the fact that there has been a seismic change in UK politics and stop living in the past. The party which has been leading every single opinion poll since mid-April is neither the Labour Party nor the Tory Party. Nothing even approaching that situation that has ever occurred before in the UK.
So no, YP won't appeal to people with conservative views like yourself and Adnan Hussain. Which is something that I am very grateful for. As you can imagine.
The way they are going they wont have a couple of dozen members, yet alone MPs. At the moment 10 to 15% of the vote wont get you any MPs unless its very localised. Reform have shown that. Unfortunately Reform appwars to be at the tipping point where they may gain a lot of MPs. Your Party will not feature (or probably still exist) at the next election.
At the moment 10 to 15% of the vote wont get you any MPs unless its very localised.
Absolutely they will be very localised.
Which is precisely why an MRP poll last month gave YP 13 seats with just 4% of the vote. Despite the tensions with more conservative elements within the Muslim community expect YP to do very well in areas with high Muslim populations. Given a choice between voting for a genocidal regime friendly Labour Party and YP many Muslims won't hesitate to vote for YP, especially younger Muslims.
The same MRP poll gave the Greens 6 seats with 7% of the vote. The Green vote is obviously spread out far more thinly.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20251015.html
Your Party will not feature (or probably still exist) at the next election.
You must be very relieved, no?
You must be very relieved, no?
Honestly given I don't think they will make a difference whether they still exist or ot doesn't really bother me. In some respects I hope they are, one thing we're can probably agree on is the current state of politics in the UK is dire, its either weak and aimless (Labour) or simplistically nasty, (Reform and Torys).
Like Binners I had hoped Labour would start to reset some of the stupidity of the last 14 years, I didn't expect it to be quick or popular, but instead they made amateur mistake after mistake and don't seem to be able to stand by their decisions, winter fuel allowance being a prime example. Trouble is I don't see YP as any better, we need stable competent politicians capable of showing the likes of Farage for what he is. Maybe Polanski is the man, he was quite agile and intelligent on the Last Leg a couple of weeks ago.
The "trouble", at least probably the biggest problem, is that Starmer/McSweeney only see the threat from the right and their response to that is to move Labour to the right. Believing, despite overwhelming international evidence to suggest the complete opposite, that this is the best way to respond to a threat from the far-right.
I know that you don't think, at least so you claim, that YP won't come to much but there is compelling evidence that they will hurt Labour, a few on stw have made precisely that point. If mimicking those who threatened you is the go to response from Starmer and McSweeney things could get interesting. Is that something which bothers you - Labour moving to the left?
It is very likely that some sort of electoral deal will materialise between YP and the Greens. Polanski has repeatedly said that he is open to the idea and both could significantly benefit from an arrangement.
The few Green Party members I know are not hostile to YP and in fact they appear to mostly welcome its establishment as YP are likely to encourage the involvement of many more people on the left of UK politics. Tonight I will be attending a local fund raising (music) event for YP, I will not be in the least bit surprised if any Green Party members attend.
For the record I will be voting for the Greens in next year's local elections as I have been for many years.
I didn't expect it to be quick or popular, but instead they made amateur mistake after mistake and don't seem to be able to stand by their decisions, winter fuel allowance being a prime example.
Well, they said they would only provide it for the most vulnerable, everyone else who would have benefited kicked off, so the mistake has been rectified, and I can’t see a problem with a government that responds to criticism.
I’m happy they’ve changed their mind, because I’ll be getting £200 towards my heating bill this year.
Iqbal Mohamed has quit now, citing "many false allegations and smears” against him.
Yeah another conservative Muslim guy realises that a left-wing socially liberal political party probably isn't for him. Like Adnan Hussain Iqbal Mohamed probably feels that Muslim men are being hard done by in this left-wing anti-misogynist and anti-homophobic political party.
I am sure that Iqbal Mohamed has also made the right decision. Another person who appears to have read the room. And I am certainly starting to understand what Zahra Sultana is having to deal with.
Both Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed were absolutely right to stand in the general election against a party which has a track record of being friendly and supportive of a genocidal and criminal regime, and I am very glad that they were successful, other candidates might not have been, but their's is a very limited agenda which clearly doesn't extend to being part of a new radical party on the left of UK politics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg169p0850o
Adnan Hussain said he would be "stepping away" from the steering group of the movement currently operating under the name Your Party - citing a "toxic" culture particularly towards "Muslim men".
The Blackburn MP added: "I have also been deeply troubled by the way certain figures within the steering process, particularly Muslim men, have been spoken about and treated.
Sometimes it is hard to be a man who knows where a woman's place is, especially among left-wing circles.
Are there any recorded incidents of anyone in ‘Your Party’ agreeing with anyone else in ‘Your Party’ about anything at all whatsoever?
I can’t wait to see them trying to sort out some actual policies, when they can’t even decide on a name and spend 98% of their waking hours briefing against each other
Lets not hold our breath for that one eh comrades? 😂
Are there any recorded incidents of anyone in ‘Your Party’ agreeing with anyone else in ‘Your Party’ about anything at all whatsoever?
Yes there is agreement on pretty much most fundamental issues, as you might expect.
I am not sure why you think that two conservative Muslim men not feeling particularly comfortable remaining in a left-wing socially liberal party with a bolshie woman at the top suggests that no one in YP agrees about anything.
Well I actually I do.......as someone who seriously struggles to come up with coherent political arguments and relies instead on mocking and posting stills from a 45 year old film you haven't got much else to offer ! 🤣
Some party figures associated with Corbyn have been annoyed by Sultana’s decision to hold her own pre-conference rally on the Friday night before the conference begins, billing it as a Your Party event when it is organised by her solely.
Reminds me of my students union when i was at uni.
Surely the logical thing for Magic Grandad to do is to organise a pre-pre-conference rally on the Thursday night?
The Canary claims that Mohamed quit because Sultana told him off for anti-trans statements. But no further details on those supposed "false allegations and smears" that Mohamed said made him quit.
https://www.thecanary.co/editorial/2025/11/21/iqbal-mohamed-quits/
Your Party missed it's moment - if it ever really had one. Greens under Polanski occupy all their potential political territory with the benefit of an existing party structure and loads of media.
It'll be gone in any meaningful way within months
It'll be gone in any meaningful way within months
What? Don't you know that Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular politician among young voters ever in the history of dubious opinion polls and a party with 2 leadership teams is the cutting edge of political organisation? 🤣
in the history of dubious opinion polls
To be fair they are probably only "dubious" when they don't comply with your personal preferences.
Opinion polls have a margin of error of approximately -+ 2-3% which is why organisations pay them good money to carry out both political and market research.
. But no further details on those supposed "false allegations and smears" that Mohamed said made him quit.
A bit more detail in this article in which the headline writer amusingly suggests that Iqbal Mohamed's resignation is a, quote, "blow" to Zahra Sultana! !
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/second-mp-quits-your-party-5HjdNDx_2/
A rapt nation holds its breath in anticipation at further developments....
Apologies for copying across from Facebook, but…
And this here precisely highlights the problem that a couple of individuals have with the direction that Zahra Sultana wants to take the new party, a battle which thankfully she appears to be winning
https://twitter.com/Labourheartland/status/1992401690029343135
This isn't an argument between socialists as hilariously satired by Monty Python, in a surprisingly accurate way, this is an argument between socialists and non-socialists.
You cannot have a socialist party which isn't socialist. Well obviously you can but one already exists, 5 years ago Sir Keir Starmer made "the moral case for socialism" and he is now absolutely determined that the current Labour government should devoid of anything vaguely socialist.
The Wigan Test: If Your Socialism Fails the Council Estate, It Fails Entirely
The Wigan test? Christ on a bendybus! Does that have the theme to the hovis advert playing behind it when you read it?
That sounds exactly like the kind of patronising, condescending bullshit so beloved of middle class lefties from Islington who couldn’t find Wigan on a ****ing map, never mind been to a council estate there. The irony! 🙄
‘The Socialism of the Hearth’ from ‘Labour Heartlands’ sounds just as wrapped up in backward-gazing, sepia-tinted horseshit as the Reform lot and their professed love of spitfires and Winston Churchill and the days of empire
‘The Socialism of the Hearth’ from ‘Labour Heartlands’ sounds just as wrapped up in backward-gazing, sepia-tinted horseshit as the Reform lot and their professed love of spitfires and Winston Churchill and the days of empire
Er, yes, that is exactly the point, well done for getting it!
These individuals who are unhappy with the direction that Zahra Sultana wants to take the new party would probably be happier in Reform.
If they want a socially conservative party with left-wing economic policies I believe that Nigel Farage's party is now saying that 50% of the utilities should be renationalised.
And as Muslims Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed will be welcomed with open arms by Nigel Farage, just like Zia Yusuf was/is.
Obviously they will have to tolerate islamophobia in his party and strongly support the zionist state, but hey, you can't have everything!
Or alternatively they could just join Starmer's Reform-lite Party (without any Leftie stuff). If they don't mind jumping on a sinking ship.
Hardly a purity test. If you actually bothered to read the BBC link which I provided you would understand that Adnan Hussain for example makes an attack on "the Left" in general, ie :
"At times the rhetoric used has been disturbingly similar to the very political forces the left claims to oppose."
It obvious that he doesn't consider himself to be part of the Left. So why on earth should he feel that a left-wing party is the right one for him?
YP is not being set up as a "left-wing party" which includes left-wingers and anti left-wingers We already have one of those, how's that turning out?
Btw out of interest why did you think that these couple of individuals might have been socialists/left-wing? You do realise that they stood and won their seats fundamentally on the single issue of opposing Labour candidates who supported the genocidal regime in Israel don't you?
You don't need to be particularly left-wing or socialist to oppose genocide, plenty of people with very conservative views do. It's not something which the Left have a monopoly over.
So, this is now a fight between two rival factions in a party with only two MPs?
In the red corner we have Zara Sultana and in the even redder corner we have Jeremy Corbyn, and a selection of misogynistic old trade union dinosaur’s, everyone else having already left due to ‘creative differences’
Overall, how would you say the revolution is presently going comrade?
I am not sure that two individuals can be classed as a "faction" but I guess actual facts don't really concern you binners, as you persist to pretend that this is a disagreement between socialists/left-wingers.
Besides, if this isn't actually a dispute between socialists/left-wingers then that would render your hilarious posting of stills from the Life of Brian even more pointless, and we couldn't have that now could we?
So yeah stick to your false narrative otherwise you might have to make your point in a more challenging way than simply posting pictures! 🤣
There have always been these death spiral socialist mini-parties floating around, occasionally attached to someone with wider name recognition.
Is there an exhaustive list somewhere of all the different 'socialist' entities that are putting up candidates occasionally? Socialist Party, SWP. Transform, Left Unity, Social Justice Party, Socialist Alliance, Communist Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Labour Party, etc etc etc?
Your Party!!!! is simply one of these, but with the current advantage of a bit of name recognition for its leaders, which means all the inevitable infighting gets a bit of press coverage, which will continue until it either withers on the vine or splits into two or three partylets.
This story is actually a lesson in why it is so hard to form new political parties and gain any traction. You need a clear vision, but you also need a bit of marketing gravitas.
The task has also been rendered much harder when another party elects a new leader who espouses a broadly similar policy platform, just without a big red nose, a huge pair of oversized shoes and more baggage than Heathrow departures
What are you talking about? The clown who is broadly espousing similar policies to Nigel Farage's party (expect without the lefty re-nationalisation stuff) has been party leader for over 5 years
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/a-clown-government-elected-on-a-seriousness-e25
Stripping asylum seekers of their jewellery when they arrive. Deporting children. Keeping proven refugees in a state of perpetual administrative limbo for decades, so they can never put down roots or have any sense of security. The sort of thing someone proposes when they have lost any lingering sense of decency or moral vigour.
What are you talking about?
Seeing as this is a thread about a new party started by Mr Corbyn I'll go out on a limb and say he's talking about Jeremy Corbyn?
The task has also been rendered much harder when another party elects a new leader who espouses a broadly similar policy platform,
So what you're saying is that Your Party has won the argument because its policies have been stolen by rivals?
I'll go out on a limb and say he's talking about Jeremy Corbyn?
You would have thought so wouldn't you?
And yet as Ian Dunt's eloquent article points out the clown currently in UK is neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Nigel Farage but our Sir Keir Starmer. As Dunt points out :
People voted for Starmer because they wanted grown-up government.
Now where have I heard that before ?
Oh yeah, binners! According to binners the grown-ups are now in charge of the UK government.
FFS only a clown could have ended up with the second largest Labour majority in history, with all the massive political advantages that provided him with, and within 18 months reduced Labour to fourth position in opinion polls!
I reckon that Starmer should take a bucket of confetti at the next sitting of the House of Commons to throw at the Labour backbenches, and squirty clown crying eyes to express his sadness at so many of them losing their seats in less than 4 years time
Back up to second now, although the general point about squandering a mahoosive majority stands.
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3m6gwjm5nac2r
The truth is that the electorate is far more volatile than it was 20 years ago, voting habits are far easier to break and voters are exposed to a constant barrage of information from a wide variety of sources, not all of it reliable. I would expect this to cause far greater polling swings against incumbent governments in between GEs. It's the equivalent of hearing the Man Utd fans on forums calling for the manager to be sacked when the side is mid-table.
Having said that, it's been an utterly disappointing period. Starmer just doesn't have the dynamism or inner belief needed to convert that kind of majority into social change at speed. Could simply be the fruits of a stagnant economy. Blair at least had somewhat of an economic upturn to fuel some higher spending on health before it all went to shit.