21.08.2025
%2C_Labour_Roots_event_art_full.jpg)
Taking off … despite the leadership
Contrary to what Zarah Sultana thinks, her OMOV proposals would make Your Party less, not more, democratic than even today’s Labour Party, warns Carla Roberts. Plus: the first reports from branches
The fight between the two factions in the leadership of the Jeremy Corbyn Party - aka Your Party - is heating up. On the one side, there is Karie Murphy, former right-hand woman of Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader of the Labour Party and partner of the influential Len McCluskey, former Unite general secretary. She seems to be trying to make Your Party as undemocratic and tightly controlled from the top as possible. Talks of a successful ‘coup’ led by her, however, might have been slightly exaggerated.
No doubt she is trying to further sideline the small group of 40 or so hand-picked people who are currently allowed to discuss the future direction - all behind closed doors. Murphy wants to hand over the organisation of the launch conference to six MPs - ie, Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana and the four others in the Independent Alliance. While those four are all strong supporters of Palestine, none of them can be said to be socialists or even genuinely on the left. Adam Shockat (MP for Leicester South), for example, argued in a cringeworthy interview: “If we call ourselves ‘left’, people on the other side of the spectrum might feel alienated.”1
The other side is now led by Zarah Sultana and ANC veteran Andrew Feinstein, who are increasingly open about their criticisms of Murphy’s bureaucratic manoeuvres. In a recent interview with New Left Review, Sultana complains: “Between 2015 and 2019 I had friends and colleagues who worked at the top of the Labour Party, and they can tell you that in parts it was a highly dysfunctional working environment with toxicity and bullying - not from Jeremy, but from some people around him. Power was too centralised. This is not what we need for this emerging project.”2
However, her understandable disdain for the Labour bureaucracy leads her to bend the stick in the opposite direction:
Those who participate in our inaugural conference have to take part meaningfully, and that can only mean ‘one member, one vote’ (OMOV). There should be an accessible venue, as well as a hybrid aspect with low barriers to entry. We should be striving for mass participation, as opposed to a narrow delegate structure, which could be unrepresentative of our base.
OMOV sounds very democratic - but really is not, once you think through the implications. For example, we hear that Feinstein and Sultana are the ones controlling the YP database, probably because it was decided to merge the new YP data (currently over 800,000 signatories) with the hundreds of thousands of signatures collected by ‘Team Zarah’ when she jumped ahead with announcing the formation of the new party. A gamble that seems to have paid off for her. There is also a substantial amount of money being donated by the 800,000 supporters - again, we hear it is Sultana and Feinstein who, let us say, have ‘access’ to the funds and can make ‘recommendations’ on how to spend them. They are currently in talks with various “movement groups” and “tech co-ops” with the aim of developing “online digital deliberation platforms”, which are supposed to aid discussion of proposals before conference and probably e-voting at conference.
Perhaps recognising how atomising and demobilising such methods can be, they are proposing that there should also be 10 regional assemblies, with around 1,000 supporters in each, which would be “consulted” about their views in the run-up to the founding conference. It is unclear if Feinstein and Sultana want delegates to be elected at these assemblies. Perhaps this is what Andrew Feinstein meant when he talked about Sheffield comrades “choosing delegates”- see report.
A similar idea was put forward by James Schneider, former press secretary of Corbyn, who explained in an interview with Novara Media on July 25 that he had been part of the inner circle “for about a year”. But he sees no need for democratically chosen delegates: “There will soon be a number of big regional meetings, which are ‘deliberative’, which will be discussing the issues that are then worked out into options which will then go to a sovereign conference of all members … This has to be done via online voting, as there are no other structures set up.”3
It does not take a genius to see the obvious problems with this method. Who is formulating these ‘options’? Who will decide how they are to be presented? Who will be allowed to move them at the conference? Who will be able to participate in a meaningful debate that voters at home could listen to in order to make an informed decision? Even if those formulating the ‘options’ had the best of intentions, the outcome would be pretty much a foregone conclusion. Add to that the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn getting up to endorse this or that option - and you can save yourself the bother of spending thousands on ‘online digital deliberation platforms’.
Contrary to what Sultana might think, this method is actually less, not more, democratic than the much-curtailed democracy of even today’s Labour Party. It will, in fact, give the central bureaucracy more power.
All the while, Jeremy Corbyn sits in the middle of all of those factional struggles, not wanting to get involved, but to keep everybody happy and feeling included. This indecisiveness and dithering at the top is becoming an increasingly debilitating problem, as Max Shanly writes on X: “Coups take control of things. In this case, the thing to be taken control of is the opinion of one rather gullible man. If the emperor keeps listening to the wrong advisors, maybe we need rid of the emperor.”
It is excellent that groups up and down the country have started to take matters into their own hands. They are not waiting for the victory of this or that faction - or indeed the launch conference, whatever it may look like. Clearly things are very much in flux and by getting organised below, on regional and perhaps even a national level as well, YP supporters can help to shift things quite dramatically in the next few months - in terms of both the democracy and the politics of the new party.
That is why the Weekly Worker wants to publish reports and notifications of meetings taking place - please send them to editor@weeklyworker.co.uk (the deadline is Tuesday 6pm each week).
It’s happening here, there and everywhere
We want reports of what is going on around the country. Here are some of those we have received
Sheffield in the forefront
There was some trepidation in the run-up to the first meeting of Your Party supporters in Sheffield on August 13, organised by Sheffield Left. Some of the 230 people who quickly joined an open WhatsApp group were worried that we should “wait for Jeremy” to tell us how and when to organise. We shouldn’t really be doing anything before the launch conference in November.
But then Andrew Feinstein agreed to speak at the meeting and, with less than 24 hours to go, Jeremy Corbyn sent a video message, congratulating people for taking the initiative. This was, to our knowledge, the first such endorsement for a Your Party branch and has quite rightly been interpreted as a starting signal for other groups across the country to get off the ground.
About 140 people showed up on August 13, while another 50 watched on Zoom. Andrew Feinstein, answering questions, was happy to explain that the new party “would not be making the same mistakes again, when it comes to the anti-Semitism smear campaign” and also warned that “we will have to resist attacks on the ideologies of some of the people involved in the new party”. He is right to foresee the successful witch-hunt being broadened out to other areas.
He also spoke about the need for the party to create its “own independent media outlets, including a national newspaper which could have space for local content”. This is an absolute necessity and a very welcome suggestion. But it needs to be open and democratic, not a boring advertising sheet like The Socialist. It must feature political discussions and debate. After all, there are huge questions facing the organisation: Should it be openly socialist? Or just ‘left’? Should we aim to become ‘the next government’- or should we learn the lessons from Syriza, Podemos, Rifondazione Comunista, Die Linke, etc, who inevitably ended up running capitalism, and should we therefore concentrate on being a strong and effective political opposition instead? Open and democratic debate around those issues is the only way to create meaningful unity.
Despite the excellent turnout, the numerous members of the Socialist Workers Party in the room kept repeating how the meeting was “not representative” enough, because it was mainly “just the organised left” and that we need to go “out there” etc, which was most sharply expressed by the local SWP leader Tom Kay: “It’s all well and good talking about policies. But we are not going to stop the fascists with good socialist policies, are we? The only thing that’s going to stop them is being out there on the streets. And I don’t care if you’re in the Green Party and if you’re buzzing because of Zack Polanski. Come and join us on the streets”.
What a strange contribution. Socialist policies are exactly what is needed to defeat the right!
It is also extremely daft to criticise the fact that it was mainly “the organised left” was present. For a start, this layer will no doubt form the backbone of the new Corbyn Party. Putting ourselves down or, worse, pretending we are not actually members of any particular group is extremely dishonest. Yes, of course we need to win the majority of the working class to the fight for socialism/communism, but, having dedicated your life to the fight for socialism should not be presented as some kind of problem.
Tina Becker
Not just crumbs in Manchester
Manchester’s first Your Party meeting took place on August 19. Counterfire were the organisers. The upper hall of Friends Meeting House was packed out, with easily over a hundred attending. The main platform speakers were independent socialist councillor Michael Lavalette, independent councillor Abdul Waheed from Oldham and former Workers Party of Britain parliamentary candidate Aroma Hassan.
The common theme was the need to get going, using the energy from the Palestine movement and hatred of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party to build what Lavalette called a “movement party”, where elected representatives are “megaphones for our movement”.
Contributions from the floor expressed the wide range of views in our movement. Ian P from Anticapitalist Resistance warned the meeting that we must avoid sectarianism - a sentiment echoed by the chair, Penny H, who remarked on the number of organisations represented at the meeting. Speakers from the Revolutionary Communist Party, Talking About Socialism, Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century and the Socialist Workers Party all addressed the meeting alongside trade union and movement activists.
Soraya Lawrence from TAS made the case for a clear programme that opposed the profit system and fought to “change the system completely”. Amy L from the SWP spoke forcefully on the new party having the ability to win people over by putting the case for an alternative that defends migrants and trans people against attacks. Palestine was a theme throughout, with one contributor explaining that “Palestine has woken us all up” and has led people to make links between British foreign policy and attacks on living standards and democratic rights at home.
Many spoke on the need for the party to be democratic with a comrade from RS21 making the case for a party where the national conference was the highest decision-making body, for ‘one member, one vote’ and against a federal structure. The opportunity of this new party was summed up by an RCP comrade, who argued that the deep-seated anger across society can be mobilised to say we don’t just fight “for crumbs, but for the whole bakery”.
Upcoming meetings on Your Party in Manchester include one organised by the SWP and another organised by Greater Manchester Supporters of Your Party - both at the Friends Meeting House.
CJ
Croydon hopes for big times
I wouldn’t have thought it possible just a year ago that Cedar Hall in Ruskin House - the Croydon HQ of the Communist Party of Britain - would host members and supporters of diverse left groups to talk about working together. If not being afraid to debate differences and willing to focus on a bigger cause is what unity in one party looks like, then this was a good start.
There it was: Tuesday evening, August 19, and well over 100 people sat (and stood) to discuss what can be done to make Your Party a reality. The organisers, Croydon Assembly, were surprised by the big turnout, given that it was August and many people were away. As you might have expected, there were the trade unionists, local activists, betrayed Labour Party members, a good many SWPers and CPBers - but there was also a solid flank of young members of the organised left - including the Revolutionary Communist Party and Anticapitalist Resistance. They made up a good third of the gathering.
Despite the last-minute scheduling, the organisers had managed to bring a panel of guest speakers together to kick off the debate: trade unionist and writer John McInally, Mel Mullins from Black Lives Matter and the RMT union, and activists from Disabled People Against Cuts and Friends of Palestine. After that, the floor was open to the public.
The intention was to split the debate between policies and then organisation. It didn’t quite get there, but enough was put on the table to work with at future meetings. McInally talked about the aim of the new party - to win back gains lost over the past decades, build solidarity across the left and “give Starmer a message”. This shouldn’t be just a party, he said: it needs to be a movement; and, more than that, it needs to be an electoral force and a solid opposition to the other parties - Reform being the main one to fight. Building a mass and militant trade union movement was essential to this - a theme that was picked up again and again through the evening.
Agreeing on policies wasn’t the problem: anti-austerity, anti-cuts, anti-racism, pro-Palestine, reparations, housing, renationalisation of services, stopping the privatisation of the NHS and the introduction of socialist structures from the grassroots up. These had to be the things hammered out among party members to take to the doorsteps, so that a compelling alternative to Reform could be made to voters.
But what kind of party was it to be? There was the rub. Definitely an electoral party - there was agreement that enough progress must be made to stand for local elections in May 2026. Work must begin immediately to elect branch officers and then candidates, and a campaign set out, so that door-knocking can begin. This must be done before Corbyn’s ‘autumn conference’.
What might this look like? How might it be done? There was talk of a pact with the Green Party for its reach and organisational capabilities, the aim being to have a Your Party candidate for each district. Others, on the other hand, wanted solid red lines drawn regarding socialist issues, as the Greens offered no real anti-capitalist alternatives.
Structure should be democratic, with representatives elected and the grassroots movement making the party, not the other way around. Another said the form should be a federal one, with the trade unions taking a large stake. Profile-raising should be done through campaigning on local issues, such as what the council is doing with taxpayer money, funding of local services, and organising local counter-rallies where fascists are targeting hotels housing immigrants. National issues were also raised - raising awareness of benefit cuts and encouraging people to write to local MPs to demand change and delay Labour’s austerity push.
Bigger differences, however, were more apparent when it came to the question of whether we talk about socialism or Marxism. No-one mentioned the ‘c’ word. There was an obvious divide between those who didn’t want to shy away from the fact that ‘tinkering with the capitalist system hasn’t worked and never will’, that people should be reminded that Britain’s original ‘workers’ party’ - Labour - was never really that, and that Your Party should have at its core revolutionary aims, even as it tackles issues that voters care about. As one comrade said, invoking James Connolly, “Our demands are moderate - we only want the earth”.
Time and again, mainly young people stood up to say an anti-capitalist society was necessary to tackle issues voters care about, not a Labour Party mark 2, and that this should not be shied away from. Nor should we dodge capitalism’s role in international geopolitics, in Nato and the climate catastrophe. These should be part of open public debate and education.
Meanwhile, the ‘softly, softly’ brigade didn’t want to ‘scare off people’ with all of that. They wanted to stick to the line that people can have their say through the new party structure of being ‘from the grassroots up’ and gaining workers’ power through a mass trade union movement, empowered by abolishing anti-union laws. Another said that “Marxism is irrelevant to the single mother with hungry kids” and “we shouldn’t bring these esoteric arguments to the doorstep - they do not help people”. Re-establishing trade union rights will. I say, let’s not clip the party’s wings before we even fly by underestimating the reasoning of the working class.
Towards the end, a CPBer gave what was for many the unpalatable message that it’s not enough to just want socialism and even be elected on those policies. The ruling class would just not allow it. No, socialism must be enforced. If Your Party is to get anywhere, he added, it needs to build relationships with far-left groups, without which it would lack the numbers and the experience of organising.
Nevertheless, there was solidarity in the room and every speaker was clapped and thanked, and there is cause for hope that Your Party will be big and strong enough to cover all opinions. As one RCP member said, “Reformism doesn’t work, only a revolution will. We will go all the way with Your Party to develop revolutionary policies.”
There’s a lot of ground to cover and a lot of hard work to do, but the evening ended with a show of unity: it was agreed to meet monthly, to elect branch representatives and to stand for the May 2026 local elections.
Pat Taylor
Even in the Isle of Wight
On August 14, 67 ex-Labour members, socialists, communists and others met in Newport on the Isle of Wight, and agreed by nem con vote to constitute themselves as the local branch of the nascent organisation. Discussion of what Your Party should be was initially wide-ranging over various different political positions, from localism to following the path of the 1945 Labour government, from reheated Labourism to revolutionary stances, and so on.
Initially, some present stated they were averse to being called or to using ‘comrade’; but that faded into good-natured banter later. There was a handful of Green Party members present (some of whom were ex‑Labour); there was also at least one current Labour Party member. Age-wise, the proportion of younger people constituted a large minority; a good number of them spoke and got an enthusiastic reception.
As the meeting moved beyond the halfway point, there developed a high level of support for the following key issues: a working class movement for socialism; getting rid of capitalism as a threat to us all (through environmental collapse or nuclear war); no pandering to the enemy ruling class mass media; establishing our own, working class media (including social media); and, most clearly of all, the need for a truly democratic party structure unlike the regime of the Labour Party in particular.
Only one vote was taken at the meeting, however, and that was to formally establish that this meeting was now to be considered the Isle of Wight branch of Your Party. At the next meeting, in September, the branch will have to decide its officers, which might meet partial resistance at least due to past experience of the Labour Party. Those present will have to be convinced of the overriding strength of recallability and basic democratic organisational methods, if the fears voiced at this meeting are to be allayed. Horror of the Labour Party regime runs deep. This constant theme met with audience support, especially after one person’s comment about there being only rightwing parties at present in Britain - one effect of which is the skewed reasoning that leads to increased support for Reform UK. Connected to this was a well-supported suggestion that there is now a big space marked ‘left’ that the new party should naturally inhabit.
Less than 24 hours after the meeting a lively Facebook page of a supporters’ group had already been set up, with postings from many of those present and from others who could not make the meeting. Branch life has begun.
Jim Moody