Forum menu
I have to point out as you have done many times the SNP only cover 9% of the UK population
I wasn't trying to make a point of membership size to population ratio.
I was simply making the point that a membership of over 50k is a reasonable size for a party to be functioning, it puts YP among the half a dozen largest political parties in the UK.
The size comparison with the SNP was purely for perspective.
I get your point, but the SNP is at that membership after a great deal of time to mature it's membership base.
It is striking that the SNP membership per cap in Scotland was twice as high as Con+Lab combined across the whole UK. Just as a side observation - SNP membership is cratering at the moment.
2021: 103,884.
2022: 85,000.
2023: 69,325.
2024: 64,525.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party
SNP cash donations are very low too now: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-donations-dry-up-john-36349725
I imagine that Lab and Con membership is collapsing too. Even for parties that I disagree with, lower membership is bad for democracy: it means parties will be scrabbling around for wealthy donors to plug the gaps... 🙁
And so I suppose a huge plus for Your Party is that they don't appear to be relying on cash or in-kind donations from rich donors.
At the last YP meeting in Croydon the sole member of the SWP there grabbed the mic and categorically refused to comply with the chairwoman's request to yield and step away. Everyone else there was pretty much united in their condemnation of his destructive behaviour.
Why did everyone at the meeting just not rush the stage and batter the ****?
Blooming lefties.
Personally the old stalinist in me would have liked to have taken him outside and shot him. However that sort of thing is generally frowned upon by liberal snowflakes and unfortunately when the guest speaker Zahra Sultana turned up she requested that the chair allow him to speak for 2 minutes, despite being completely out of order.
He ended up rabbiting for a lot longer than 2 minutes although I can't even remember what point he was making, not that I was in the least bit interested. He is currently causing chaos on the local WhatsApp group which he joined two days ago and his very first post was to attack Jeremy Corbyn for allegedly being a Bennite.
Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need to worry about the right-wing press the SWP will shaft his project. I can fully understand why he wanted them kept out.
Tbh as far as I am aware technically no decision has yet been made to allow the SWP to join YP. Conference voted to allow dual membership with organisations approved by the central executive committee, which I don't believe has met yet.
More evidence today for the working theory that Sultana is just chucking stuff out that sounds gets a lot of 🤩 in her WhatsApp groups...but she isn't well-informed or particularly intellectually curious.
Sultana says:
It’s 2025 and we’re still living as subjects, not citizens.
It’s time for a referendum on the monarchy.
Unfortunately she is about 76 years out of date on the premise of her statement. As the British Nationality Act 1948 made just about every British subject in the UK a British citizen with effect from 1949. The British Nationality Act 1981 (12 years before Sultana was even born!) expanded this even further.
As the UK-born child of UK-born UK citizens, Sultana has been a UK citizen her entire life. She is an MP and has a degree in International Relations and Economics from Birmingham Uni.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
https://bsky.app/profile/zarahsultana.bsky.social/post/3m7fiy7ncds24
She is an MP
Which I guess is probably one of the reasons that she claims we’re still living "as" subjects.
Never mind the legislation 76 years we are still living as subjects. As an MP Zahra Sultana had to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs, and successors. Why should she have to do that?
Also as an MP Zahra Sultana has had to sit and listen to first a Queen, and then a King, make speeches in the UK Parliament. Why should she have to do that?
I think she has a perfectly valid point when she claims that we are forced to live as subjects to the Crown, because that is exactly the situation, whatever the British Nationality Act 1948 might say.
I don't agree that now's the time to hold a referendum on the monarchy though, but that's just my personal opinion.
He ended up rabbiting for a lot longer than 2 minutes although I can't even remember what point he was making, not that I was in the least bit interested.
Never mind the legislation 76 years we are still living as subjects. As an MP Zahra Sultana had to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs, and successors. Why should she have to do that?
And anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Exactly Kelvin. Not like my fascinating in-depth political comments which you go through with a fine-tooth comb.
There's a YP meeting tomorrow evening but thankfully I think he is out of the country so hopefully we will be spared. Although unfortunately it doesn't stop him accessing WhatsApp.
I honestly don't know where the SWP finds these people. And I haven't figured out whether they are all like that at the time they join the SWP or if that's what SWP membership turns you into.
And anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Do you suggest a water based lube when 'subjecting' , or is a smidge of Mobil XHP 222 ok?
Or how about a big wadge of cash? 😎
anyone taking UK citizenship has to subject themselves to the Crown. Perhaps she's more intellectually curious than some posters here...
Neither the oath/affirmation nor the pledge required of people acquiring UK citizenship refer to "subjects" and the pledge literally says "I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen". But that's not personally relevant to Sultana or the vast majority of British citizens in any case, for obvious reasons.
As for "British subjects":
> Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’. All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them. Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject
Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking on about and is playing to her (decreasing) gallery. Of course, if your standard for accuracy is 50%, then Sultana is playing a blinder!
"Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking"
Did anyone take her seriously in the first instance? Her boss certainly didn't. 😉
Neither the oath/affirmation nor the pledge required of people acquiring UK citizenship refer to "subjects" and the pledge literally says "I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen".
Oath of allegiance
I, (name), swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, his Heirs and Successors, according to law.
You can play semantics if you think it helps your argument, but the oath is pretty clear to me. Let me know if you need some help understanding it.
Its probably time to admit that Sultana just doesn't know what she's quacking on about
Personally I think it's probably time you admitted that you misunderstood the point she was making, ie that we are "still" living "as" subjects and not citizens, whatever changes may have occurred to the nationality laws.
The very fact that British politicians have to swear allegiance to the Crown, unlike countries which have no monarchies, proves that point.
It's strange that you should seek to criticise her on what you obviously think is a pendantic point btw
I would get rid of the monarchy tomorrow as the whole idea stinks and seems 400 years out of date. However, I think a referendum would just end up keeping them. I would go for an option of cutting it right back so only the key members have anything, they would have to be self sufficient and just have the one landmark property in London as it is a very good tourist attraction.
As for Sultana being correct, that is as irrelevant as Your Party which is already a laughing stock made worse by more and more out of touch 'policies' (looking at this from perspective of average voter)
To use a horrible tech cliche, they need to fail fast and accept it is now a non starter.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens". I think that's pretty embarrassing for a lawmakers but others don't think it matters. 🤷♂️
What are the actual, practical ways in which you, me and Sultana are being deprived of our rights as citizens by the monarchy, and what makes it a priority now?
Bath draw a couldn't - rearrange to form a well know phrase or saying. Ever organisation has birthing pains, but this is in danger of becoming farcical.
...but this is in danger of becoming farcical.
Nah I think it's already well passed that point.
TBH from what I've heard about the conference and their other associated nonsense, it seems like the project to create a credible "progressive" alternative party to address the (growing) issues we have as a country, has basically been strangled in the crib by it's own parents.
Briefings/Counter-Briefings, power struggles, boycotts and threats to jump ship to other parties before they've even established this one. This is the kind of shit that will drive away voters.
Just seems to be too much Ego at work, various political operators forming 'camps' around figureheads, basically speed-running all the mistakes that the established parties are already embroiled in.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens"
No, let's not.
Let's just accept that Sultana is completely legally wrong about "we're still living as subjects and not citizens". I think that's pretty embarrassing for a lawmakers but others don't think it matters. 🤷♂️
would you be happier if she had said: we're still living as if we are subjects and not citizens
or even: despite the 1949 Act we're still living as if we are subjects and not citizens
What are the actual, practical ways in which you, me and Sultana are being deprived of our rights as citizens by the monarchy, and what makes it a priority now?
The fundamental anomaly is that the head of state is an inhereted position; imagine that in any other part of modern society. A political party keen on democracy, where everyone in the country has an equal right to influence local, national, and international affairs - outrageous. The fact that head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and therefore the COE has an embedded role in British society sits very uncomfortably for me. Bishops continue to sit in the House of Lords; I accept the need for a second chamber but not the religious leaders who happen to be from the Monarch's chosen religion. Equally, the Crown prerogative to veto (or ammend) laws which don't suit their personal interest is immoral and anti-democratic.
You can of course argue that it's just a token - but symbolism matters. I have no choice in the head or state or their expenditure. A party prepared to question that status quo is at least saying something different from the vast majority of the other parties. I don't think some of the other parties are particularly wedded to a parliamentary monarchy, but it might help to differentiate some of the more extreme "remember the empire", flag shaggers if parties were prepared to discuss the topic - given most of them are keen for tax reduction and a smaller state I'd love to hear them justify £130M sovereign grant next year, not to mention the cost of security etc. We can try to justify it on tourism basis - but we don't pay JK Rowling for the Harry Potter Fans that come, or Amazon (?) for bringing Outlander fans in, or instagram for driving our visitor numbers at scenic spots! I'm sure that there would be a boom of people coming to see inside all of Buckingham Palace if it was opened to all; the Louvre doesn't seem to have difficulties attracting visitors!
All that said, no matter my views on the Monarchy, it wouldn't sway me to vote for YourPaty, not least because they just lack any credibility as a party ever likely to make any traction and in our current system that would at best be a protest vote. It doesn't mean she's wrong to point out the democratic deficit.
Theyre now having a spat over whose membership portal should be issuing the refunds. They’ve got two, one each overseen by the rival Corbyn/Sultana factions.
When they’ve resolved that business, they’re going to attempt to get the piano up the stairs
Corbyn should have purged his party of troublemakers who were affiliated to third party groups with the aim of disrupting and destabilising the party.
Especially when those same entryists try and influence the outcome of a leadership election.
I'm sure he'd be against that kind of thing
When they’ve resolved that business, they’re going to attempt to get the piano up the stairs
Hey binners is that ☝️Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel from Accounts?
That famous double-act whose antics took a 172 seat Labour majority and in just 18 months had Labour trailing Reform, the Tories, and even the Greens! 😂
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-3rd-december-2025/
No. Wait. You can mention and mock any politician in the land but for the love of God don't mention STARMER! 🤣
He's only the Prime Minister!!!😂🤣😂🤣😂
Well, of the many things keeping Starmer and his Chancellor of the Exchequer awake at night, at least Corbyn’s new party is no longer one of them. It’s already spent, isn’t it.
Well indeed, that's my point, however shambolic the launching of YP Sir Keir Starmer still has plenty to keep him awake at night. According to the poll that I linked above they include Reform, the Tories, and the Greens, all of which Labour are trailing. And the 73% of voters who think he's shite at his job.
So yes, he at least doesn't need to worry about YP, but I doubt that he gets much comfort from that!
Polls are always interesting, if 73% think he is shite at his job then presumably 27% don't think that. How can 27% of people not think he is doing an awful job (he himself would clearly be in than 27% due to his complete lack of self awareness)
And yes, Corbyn was also shite at his job when leader of Labour and he also lacked self awareness. Self awareness always seems to be a bit of an issue for these leadery types though doesn't it.
Both Corbyn and Sultana should be saying to themselves, "god we really ****ed this up didn't we" and moving on.
I have to ask Ernesto…. and believe me comrade, it’s only out of genuine concern for your welfare…. where did Sir Keir Starmer touch you? …and did you firebomb his house?
"we are "still" living "as" subjects and not citizens, whatever changes may have occurred to the nationality laws"
Genuine question, not snark: what is the practical difference? how does it affect me in everyday life?
For the record I'd happily boot the Royal Family out tomorrow, even if it meant President Boris - at least we could vote him out.
where did Sir Keir Starmer touch you?
You do love your 6th form humour binners, and your mocking reference to the victims of pedophilia. I guess it deflects from your inability to engage in grown-up political discussions.
What I would like to know though is why Sir Keir Starmer is so special to you? You have so so much to say concerning so many politicians...... Kemi Badenoch, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, the list is endless, but you have absolutely nothing at all to say about the politician who holds the highest political position in the country. More than that you get into a right strop if someone dares to mention him.
Why is that? Why is Starmer in your eyes such a special politician? Obviously it has nothing to do with him being the leader of the Labour Party because you constantly mentioned his predecessor, and on more or else a daily basis, when he was leader, and you still regularly mention him.
But the current prime minister is different, you never mention him and get quite angry when people do. Care to explain this weird defensive stance you take with regards to Sir Keir Starmer.
You do love your 6th form humour binners,
You bite.
Every. Single. Time.
whatever you say. whatever worthy lengthy screed you think you're writing , over however many countless paragraghs. @binners is just laughing at the fact that he pulled your pigtails again.
Has it not occurred to you that I might actually want to encourage binners Nick?
Why exactly would I not want to? It is the centrists on here that he is embarrassing, not the lefties.
As long as he keeps posting Monty Python pics and making pureil comments rather than challenging political points I am perfectly happy.
Edit : And oh, you don't think that binners bites ? See his "for the love god" recent comment when Starmer was mentioned. There is little doubt that binners gets wound up when Starmer is mentioned.
So, this new political party… do we expect big things of it?
I notice that you cleverly avoided answering the question of whether you firebombed his house.
What have you got to hide Ernesto?
Nothing binners. Now explain your "for the love of God don't mention Sir Keir Starmer". What is it about SKS that makes both special and at the same time, despite being the PM, irrelevant?
It’s already spent, isn’t it.
Nah I suspect it will be keeping a few people up at night. Whilst in itself it isnt likely to win many seats it might result in the loss of others.
Obviously Labour could counter this by offering some left wing policies but all but the most deluded know that wont happen. Might be tricky with Streeting in particular though since he does seem high on the list of who the right wingers want as their glorious new leader.
is just laughing at the fact that he pulled your pigtails again.
Yay he is owning those libtards eh?
rather than challenging political points
Do we have any actual policy positions to debate? Has the politburo met to come up with anything of substance, or are they still squabbling over who's allowed in the clubhouse?
Has the politburo met.......
I think that nicely illustrates dissonance's point concerning how the centrists like to use the same rhetoric as those that they claim to despise, eg the right-wing press.
Yeah...... they're just a bunch of commies!
I was at a local YP on Tuesday and I would say that probably about 75% were former Labour Party members.
Sorry, was just using the terminology lightheartedly put forward by those centrists on Novara:
Assembling the politburo.
How will CEC selection work? Until early next year, the steering committee – consisting of Corbyn and the two other IA MPs who remain attached to Your Party, Ayoub Khan and Shockat Adam – will prepare for the election of 20 people to the CEC. I understand they’ll be joined by a sortitioned (ie randomly selected) committee of ordinary members to provide democratic oversight and accountability until the CEC is in place.
All I would say is that a lot of people have put their faith into Your Party to be something other than a loose alliance of factions who either hate or barely tolerate each other, and to actually start advancing policies that might win popular support. Be nice if they got on with it.
YP was registered with the EC in September. Local elections are in May, YP need to have policies out there in the public domain and as many candidates as possible.
Sorry, was just using the terminology lightheartedly put forward by those centrists on Novara:
It is hardly surprising that a Trot-friendly critical article also uses that 'light-hearted terminology'. But the point remains that it is the same rhetoric as the right-wing media uses. I am sure that you can find plenty more examples from trots if you try!
other than a loose alliance of factions who either hate or barely tolerate each other
To be fair that is a reasonable comment imo. It was with that in mind that I attended Tuesday's meeting with some trepidation, I am pretty much ready to throw in the towel tbh. So it came as something of a shock that it turned out to be an extraordinary friendly meeting despite the obvious significant differences. I don't know if people were deliberately making an effort following the shenanigans of conference, I suspect so to a degree, or how typical it is with regards to the rest of the country, locally the various left-wing groups have historically always worked very well.
YP was registered with the EC in September. Local elections are in May, YP need to have policies out there in the public domain and as many candidates as possible.
No not at all. The consensus on Tuesday was that there simply isn't time for that and the best that can be hoped for is just a couple of candidates in May's local elections. The strategy was always to try to reach agreement with the Greens, especially as they are not particularly strong in areas why YP are likely to be (eg predominantly Muslim areas) and vice versa.
So in May's local elections YP will be not only mostly backing the Greens but probably also actively helping them, and that will include the directly-elected Mayor election. Due to the large amount of former Labour Party members in YP locally, some with decades of experience, YP will probably have more experience of election campaigns than the Greens.
It is hardly surprising that a Trot-friendly critical article also uses that 'light-hearted terminology'. But the point remains that it is the same rhetoric as the right-wing media uses. I am sure that you can find plenty more examples from trots if you try!
Doesn't seem to be an awful lot of trot-friendliness in that article, seemed a fairly safe sum-up of the chaos progress so far, but I will defer to your deeper understanding of in-groups and out-groups among the left. Novara was broadly supportive of Corbyn, no, or has that moment passed? I can't keep up.
Is there a news source you'd recommend that is refreshingly free of Trots/Bolsheviks/Starmerites/Reform supporters masquerading as leftists etc? Seems like a very specific socialism safe-zone, does it even have its own media?
As for contesting the May elections, it should have been possible if the leaders of YP hadn't spent months feuding with each other. Didn't Sultana launch her controversial membership portal because Jeremy simply wasn't getting on with it?
Doesn't seem to be an awful lot of trot-friendliness in that article
So what do you think this is then?
"prompting overwrought fantasies of imminent Trot takeovers among some outside the party"
For me the single greatest disaster has been to leave the door open for the SWP. I don't consider it to be an overwrought fantasy, IMO it all but guarantees the project's failure. I have been persuaded to wait and see what happens because technically the SWP haven't been allowed dual membership yet, conference voted to allow dual membership from organisations approved by the CEC, which hasn't met yet.
But as far as I am concerned it is fait accompli, and I don't know how it's happened but locally we have one SWP member who joined even before the conference! He is utterly disruptive both on local social media and at meetings. Luckily he is away ATM which I guess is one reason why Tuesday's meeting went so smoothly.
As for contesting the May elections, it should have been possible if the leaders of YP hadn't spent months feuding with each other.
No way. You don't go from forming a party from scratch to campaigning in national elections in the space of a few months. Well you can if you want to make fools of yourselves and I think YP has done enough of that for now. Sure there will be plenty of localised areas, especially where a significant amount of the Labour Party, including councillors, have defected, but for majority of wards it isn't really feasible imo.
That's not supporting the Trots, simply downplaying their likely influence, rightly or wrongly. Which would seem to be borne out by your local experience of a single SWP arsehole disrupting a meeting, who is unlikely to be anything more than an annoyance in the longer term, let alone gain any genuine power in the local organisation. Unless you're planning on electing him chair.
You can't win though, if you chuck out these people, you're just doing a 'militant tendency' style purge, just like New Labour did in the 80s. But that was part of the formula that made New Labour electable, and New Labour bad, amirite?
The trick (as the article hints) is to use a broader quorum of membership to make the loons irrelevant, at which point they will take themselves out, and go back to sniping from the fringes, which is what they enjoy.
Another key is, in a policy vacuum, for 'leaders/founders' to use their words carefully when talking about aims, and being careful not to spend the majority of their precious time briefing against their colleagues.