18.09.2025

Straight from Momentum playbook

Branches are to be ignored and the mass of members treated to token regional meetings and pointless break‑out sessions. Carla Roberts examines the plans for November’s founding conference

As soon as we published widespread ‘news’ that the launch conference of Your Party had “definitely” been pushed back to 2026, new rumours started circulating, according to which it would “absolutely” take place in November 2025.

On September 15, the official email was sent to all membership applicants, laying out the plans for a launch conference in “late November”. Date aside, the plans unfortunately confirm what we had been warning about for some time: this will be an entirely undemocratic affair, tightly controlled by those at the top (see box for details).

There will be four documents: a “political statement”, a constitution, rules and a document on “organisational strategy”. The email gushes that “members will be able to comment, suggest changes and track how each document develops”. An online platform has been developed for this purpose.

However, the devil is in the detail: Actual changes (rather than a flurry of weird and wonderful ‘comments’ and ‘suggested changes’) can only be proposed through amendments presented by the “thousands” of participants at the launch conference. The regional assemblies taking place in October will only be “deliberative” - talking shops without any votes taken. The timeline shows that those currently running the show might accept some of the proposed changes coming from the assemblies and the online platform - or they might not. The “revised documents” will be published in October.

Leadership aims

We hear that the leadership aims for a conference with a massive 6,000 participants, chosen semi-randomly by lottery, but also ensuring “fair balance of gender, region and background”. We dread to think what this “background” might consist of - it reads like a nod to identity politics. The participants will definitely not be chosen because of their political views or plans for Your Party’s future or because their proposed amendments to the four documents are the most popular. And obviously they will not have been chosen democratically by the (proto)branches, which is what we argue for.

We want the best campaigners, the most experienced fighters, the most determined socialists deciding the future of the party - not the so-called ‘representative’ ones (who are, by definition, average). What are the chances that a relatively inexperienced group of people might end up supporting the lowest-common-denominator policies pushed by those above? Especially if you imagine Jeremy Corbyn getting up and telling them that he hopes they support the proposals. (No doubt, there will be special rules for Corbyn and other VIPs, who will be able to participate without having to throw their name into the sortition hat.)

As we have pointed out, this is the opposite of genuine democracy. The participants at launch conference are isolated individuals, entirely unaccountable to anybody. Most will not know each other. As conference participants are only selected in November, there is practically no chance for them to cohere with one another - the names surely will not be published in any case. We are talking about 6,000 individuals acting as individuals. What if all 6,000 participants want to move just one amendment each? Clearly, the conference arrangements committee will be in an incredibly powerful position - not just to choose among the amendments, but also when it comes to how to present them, where to feature them in the agenda, selecting who is allowed to speak, etc. The final online vote on the four documents will just be a formality to seal the deal.

As an important aside, we have no idea if these plans are supported by both factions at the top. Has this sham been produced with the agreement of Zarah Sultana, for example? She has moved to the left recently, but also seems to have been taken in by the illusion that hundreds of thousands of isolated people voting at home in a Zoomocracy could in any way be described as the epitome of democracy. She has been entirely quiet on social media, which does not fill us with much hope that she is putting up any resistance to these plans. She is also going on a national speaking tour with Corbyn.¹

This whole charade reminds us a lot of Momentum, which - we should remember - used to be vibrant and democratic, with autonomous branches organising the left’s work in the Labour Party. A first national democratic conference was supposed to take place in 2017, with elected delegates discussing the leadership and the policies. A conference arrangements committee had been elected, regional meetings were being organised, etc. It was becoming clear, however, that founder Jon Lansman would lose control at conference, after he surrendered to the anti-Semitism smear campaign in the Labour Party. Things really kicked off when he removed Jackie Walker as Momentum vice-chair.

So Lansman launched an “online survey” to ask all members to support his plans to abolish all democratic structures in Momentum - in the name of ‘One member, one vote’! As we wrote at the time, “the result was a forgone conclusion”. ² In plebiscites the dictator gets to choose the question put before those below and, barring accidents, they get the result they want. Not only were the questions loaded and leading: they were also disgracefully backed up by emails sent in the names of Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Lewis and Diane Abbott. Topping it all it was team Momentum doing the count. A coup in other words.

Lansman’s coup

So, with a victorious 80.6% voting for OMOV, at a stroke, the national committee, steering committee and regional committees were abolished. The plans for a democratic decision-making conference were cancelled and a constitution was installed that barred from membership of Momentum all those who had been expelled from the Labour Party. This is how Momentum was turned into a well-financed phone bank - and an entirely useless political project.

Clearly, those currently running Your Party have learned an important lesson from that experience - an entirely negative, anti-democratic one. Genuine democracy means there will be vibrant branches that can present possible challenges to the leadership. James Schneider, we should remember, was heavily involved in running Momentum and is now drafting Your Party’s constitution. There is a real danger that sortition and atomised online voting will be enshrined long-term, especially if used ‘successfully’ at the launch conference and without any criticism or protest from below.

What will this constitution say about the dozens of proto-branches that have already sprung up? We would argue that they should be officially recognised as forming the basis of future local organisations.

What about the organised left? We hear that Corbyn’s right-hand woman, Karie Murphy, in particular wants to avoid the “Marxist sects” playing any kind of role. Should she be successful and double membership is banned, the result will be obvious: Not only does it enshrine a witch-hunting culture, although groups like the Socialist Workers Party would, of course, continue to participate: it would disguise its membership behind this or that campaign (something the SWP has been practising for decades.) It will not stop sectarian behaviour in meetings, but it will enshrine bureaucratic control from above and should be opposed by all democrats and socialists.

However, it is amazing how many people on the left have already started to excuse this lack of democracy - some even support it. Oh well, there just wasn’t enough time to set up proper branches. At least young and inexperienced comrades will get a chance to go to conference. Let’s just get on with it and change things later - we have to trust Jeremy Corbyn. There is also the widespread argument that at least sortition will keep the SWP or Counterfire from electing all the delegates. And, yes, we have heard of many proto-branches that have been ‘hijacked’ by those two groups in particular. This might in fact also be one of the reasons those at the top have gone for sortition.

We criticise the SWP - a lot. But we entirely reject the idea of embracing bureaucratic manoeuvres to keep them out. For a start, it keeps all organised trends out and creates a culture against organising horizontally. However, a number of political platforms and campaigns have already sprung up, as happens in any democratic organisation. Just like the Democratic Socialists of America, we should embrace and celebrate the right to organise caucuses as a vital part of building any sort of genuine working class party.

Democracy is the only way to fight against sectarianism and bureaucratic control. We favour using systems like the single transferable vote for elections to ensure that minority views are not silenced and that no single organisation ends up with all the delegates or the whole steering committee.

Sadly, the lack of democracy in Your Party is not an unfortunate by-product of time pressures or organisational questions, but a reflection of the deep and ongoing Labourism and distrust of democracy by those currently running the show.

Launch conference lottery

Founding conference is to take place in late November, with around 6,000 participants. We hear this will be either in Birmingham or Liverpool, from Friday evening through to Sunday afternoon and that participants will sit “on circular tables, allowing informal as well as formal discussion”.
Participants are to be chosen by lottery “to ensure a fair balance of gender, region and background”.
There will be no full programme, but “draft versions of our four core founding documents - our Political Statement, Constitution, Rules, and Organisational Strategy. These documents will be drafts in the truest sense, ready to be edited and evolved. Members will be able to comment, suggest changes, and track how each document develops.” We hear too that the political statement is to be drafted by the “Independent Alliance MPs and the team around the MPs”.
The draft constitution, is likely to be drafted by James Schneider and will be hosted on an online platform. This will be structured by headings from Max Shanly’s draft constitution.
“Alongside this online process, Your Party will host huge regional deliberative meetings [our emphasis], where thousands of members come together to listen to each other, break bread and debate the founding documents face to face. From Norwich to Newcastle, we’ll foster a political culture of healthy discussion and disagreement, enabling thousands to weigh in with their ideas, questions and concerns.” Note that there will not be any votes - in other words, these will be talking shops that might (or might not) vote on amendments, which might (or might not) be tabled for debate at conference.
“In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery. These delegates will have a big responsibility - to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference.”
“The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, ‘one member, one vote’ system.”
There will probably be no leadership election at the founding conference.

www.yourparty.uk/events.↩︎
‘Reduced to a corpse?’ Weekly Worker January 12 2017: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1137/reduced-to-a-corpse.↩︎