04.12.2025

A triumph for citizen Sultana

Corbyn’s clique began the witch-hunt on day one, got its organisational strategy and standing orders passed and remains firmly in control of the levers of power. However, the left is clearly winning the battle for hearts and minds. Jack Conrad gives the view from inside the ACC hall

What is now officially known as Your Party had a stormy first conference. The witch-hunt, as we feared, began on day one. The SWP’s national secretary, Lewis Nielsen, was told he had been expelled on the way up from London. By the way, he shared an Avanti carriage with Jeremy Corbyn and his entourage (and, generously, Lewis offered to buy them a cup of tea). Others were turned away at the door, including councillors Michael Lavalette (Counterfire) and James Giles (Democratic Bloc).

However, ironically, because of the failure to cover transport and accommodation costs, and a pervasive ‘why bother’ rank-and-file attitude, given that there would be no conference votes, there was an unexpectedly shrunken sortition pool. Accordingly, a healthy proportion of those actually going to Liverpool were made up of the left … and the organised left too. Not because we are rich - we aren’t. It’s just that we are a dedicated lot, relish a good political fight when it is on offer and, above all, we know what is at stake, given capitalism’s polycrisis, the abject failure of the mainstream parties, the Green Party diversion and the spectacular rise of Reform and the far right. Historically it is, yes, socialism or barbarism.

So, instead of 13,000 members attending what would amount to a rally over the Saturday and Sunday, conference happened not in the Arena and Conference Centre’s biggest space. Rather we met in the downscaled smaller hall: capacity around 1,500. There were about 1,200 of us there each day (and most, at least those whom I asked, were attending over two days, not just one). There was, note, always plenty of room on the back, tiered seats.

Given the absence of conference votes, you have to rely on a subjective assessment when judging the size of the left at conference: eg, how many were giving out leaflets and selling papers, how many faces I recognised, how many recognised my face (not least from Online Communist Forum). Above all, however, there were the boos, the clapping and the cheering. My guess - and it is nothing more - is that the left accounted for around three-fifths of those who were there … and Jeremy Corbyn, Len McCluskey and Karie Murphy knew it and didn’t like it at all.

Failed revolution

We wanted the Liverpool conference, for all its many defects and shortcomings, to declare itself the legitimate sovereign authority in Your Party. Not through a coup, obviously, but a clear, unambiguous, democratic vote.

However, the attempt to carry through a revolution at the beginning of conference fell completely flat. Though agreed by the SWP, Counterfire and the Socialist Unity Platform, our democratic rising never happened. The spark did not even spark … let alone set conference alight.

Counterfire’s Eleanor Badcock did challenge the agenda near the beginning of proceedings. However, she directed her remarks to the chair, not conference as a whole. Apart from comrades sitting on the right-front row, who could hear her, few knew what was going on. Sitting on the left‑front row, I instinctively knew what she was doing, but, even though I rushed to support her, I have no idea what she actually said. The chair brusquely dismissed her, and stewards and FGH security guards quickly dealt with her. Comrade Badcock was effortlessly escorted to meet the conference arrangements committee (and then totally disappeared from my view thereon after).

Because those present were chosen by sortition, conference did politically reflect the majority … albeit with a highly diluted, largely uncoordinated and inexperienced left in the conference hall itself. Most left leaders did not win the YP lottery … though I did fleetingly see Lindsey German and briefly talked to Hannah Sell. Further diluting the politics, the chair chose floor speakers at random (from what I could tell). There were, though, plenty of own goals. Left comrades, such as Claire Laker-Mansfield, Amy Leather, Tam Dean Burn, and not a few others besides, made outstanding, passionate, barnstorming - albeit three-minute - speeches.

Chairs would interrupt mid-message, accusing them, accurately, of not talking to the set (often totally boring, if not totally stupid) agenda item, but instead making a protest speech. Behind the scenes, the event team - perhaps Oly Durose himself - cut off the livestream broadcast too.

Inside the hall, and not constantly looking at social media, I did not clock anything about that - till, that is, the end of the first day, when I left the ACC. Walking through the phalanx of paper sellers - before heading to the SUP’s packed fringe meeting - I came across a Socialist Alternative comrade and congratulated him on Claire Laker-Mansfield’s speech. Excellent, the best of the day, I said. Not flattery - she was good, very good. I was also genuinely amazed to learn of the YP censorship … which has more than a whiff of Stalinite thought control about it. However, thankfully, in the age of PCs, smartphones and laptops it is bound to backfire. Share, share and share again.

Because of our well-publicised plan for moving a point of order, the mainstream press was full of nonsense, such as “Communists plot takeover of Your Party”.¹ Actually, of course, we wanted a democratic vote and conference setting its own agenda and, crucially, electing an emergency, a provisional, a temporary leadership, tasked with encouraging, organising and financing the branches and preparing a fully democratic conference in 2026, based on elected and accountable branch delegates (we would recommend by STV).²

FGH private police

The Corbyn clique responded to our plan with two countermeasures. Firstly, by unilaterally ruling points of order out of order - a travesty, when it comes to any sort of democratic organisation. Labour still allows a conference delegate, who believes that there is something untoward, to raise a point of order. The chair makes a ruling and puts it to a vote.³ Essentially, the same happens in parliament.⁴ Company AGMs too.⁵ But not with Your Party in Liverpool.

Secondly, FGH was brought in. One of the UK’s largest privately owned security companies, FGH has between 1,000 to 5,000 people on its books (depending on demand). As a private police force, FGH works in close cooperation with official police forces. As such it stands fully in the tradition of America’s notorious Pinkertons. Founded in 1850, Allan Pinkerton’s private police force provided security for Abraham Lincoln, but went on to carry out operations directed against organised labour. Pinkertons infiltrated trade unions and acted as factory security guards and strike breakers.

There were uniformed FGH guards everywhere, not least lined up along the front and sides of the huge, raised stage. Most of them were on the living wage or just above … and bored silly. I did my best to fraternise. They had to keep their eyes on the conference floor and acted on instructions coming to them from ubiquitous earpieces. Corbyn and his clique clearly feared us and did not trust us to behave with due civility and deference.

The choreography was awful. Humble attendees, such as myself, were separated off from those on the stage by a good 30 feet of empty space staffed by FGH guards and a ‘don’t cross’ barrier. Beyond that constituted a no-go zone. When I took photographs of speakers and dared put a toe beyond the barrier, I was politely warned off by FGH guards (being a good boy, I did as I was told). The whole arrangement reminded me of a Communist Party of China congress (albeit done on the cheap). Top leaders are arranged on a podium located at a considerable distance from the 2,000 or so ordinary delegates. The seating visibly reflecting the power structure.

Having failed to carry out a revolution, the left was forced to fight on the terrain of reform. Some wanted to do that from the very beginning, because they believe YP is reformable. It isn’t. Others, such as ourselves, use the struggle for reforms to organise, to educate and to prepare.

That meant we were forced to fight within the Corbyn clique’s agenda, structures and according to their rules. We were never going to win then … even if we won. The Corbyn clique gave us choices not of our choosing: ‘would you rather die through strychnine or a bullet?’. The clique, of course, claimed that the membership made the choices through their submissions. Frankly, I don’t believe a word of it. The clique chose ... doubtless using the wonders of voodoo doodoo AI.

Light of day

Left amendments which had demonstrable, widespread support never saw the light of day. What a surprise. Members were given notification that they had been selected to go to Liverpool very late in the day, and the same went with the agenda and the short list of amendments that would be debated in the hall.

Some see nothing more than gross inefficiency in all this. Surely not the case. Karie Murphy, responsible for the whole jamboree, is an experienced operator. She knows all about the dark arts of the trade union and labour bureaucracy … and applied them to the Liverpool conference in spades. So, in actual fact, we are dealing with cynical calculation, not amateurish bungling.

It should be stressed, moreover, that this is a form of the class struggle that ultimately serves capitalism by cohering a bureaucracy that keeps the working class firmly under control. We have seen what this means in the fate of European social democracy. Leaders of what once were working class parties committed not to ending capitalism, but to managing, propping up, benefitting from capitalism. The Fabians in Britain providing the theory (marginalism, positivism, managerialism, gradualism⁶).

Of course, the Corbyn clique aspires not to establish a Labour Party mark two (that is the obsession of the Socialist Party in England and Wales⁷). No, instead the model is some kind of British version of Podemos, Five Star and La France Insoumise (theory provided by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, coming via James Schneider’s ‘movement populism’⁸). Marxist politics are rejected in favour of putting together a rainbow coalition, building mass electoral support and getting into government - with a view to enacting radical reformist measures. The army, the legal system, the civil service, the constitutional monarchy go largely unquestioned.

Instead of the dreadfully ‘old-fashioned’ ways of doing things in the workers’ movement, like strong, autonomous branches, the election of accountable conference delegates and democratic debate, there is a leader cult, sortition, performative consultation, formless local assemblies and media manipulation.

How did that model fare in Liverpool? Well the evolved political statement, constitution, standing orders and organisational strategy all survived. But the left made its mark. Not least when it came to defeating the idea of electing The Leader by plebiscite - a big defeat for the Corbyn clique. Instead there is the principle of collective leadership. So we don’t have a king, nor do we have an empress. We are all citizens of a (flawed) Party Republic. Hurrah!

We scored other victories too. Though given horrible choices - ie, the least worst - there was, nonetheless, in the main, a left-right choice that could be made. In every case the left won the vote … not, of course, in the hall. Every (pinched) debate featured only a handful of speakers and ended flatly with no vote, not even an indicative vote … till, that is, the next day, when the plebiscite results came in. Nonetheless, the left won across the board.

Here, it is not simply a question of word. There is the question of spirit too.

True, we did not win the war. Once we fluffed our democratic rising, that was altogether impossible. Nonetheless, we won a string of moral victories, battles or, if you like, skirmishes. This is very important politically.

Crucially that included the home front. When it came to the OMOV votes on collective leadership, dual membership, socialism, the working class and branch organisation, what was claimable by the left won - sometimes with a wafer-thin majority, but mostly with a crushing one. Corbyn and his clique lost.

The only vote Corbyn won was the Your Party name. But, given the even more unpalatable others on offer, that counts for naught. Myself, I would have, if I could have, voted for ‘none of the above’. But I couldn’t - that option was unavailable. As a result, I didn’t bother to vote on this one at all.

To my best knowledge Jeremy Corbyn is a very nice man on a personal level. He is always ready to help and would not hurt a fly. He is the epitome of the ‘Good’ character (the Delusional Messiah) in Peter Barnes’s wonderful black comedy play/film, The ruling class (1968). Fittingly his fringe meeting on Friday night at Liverpool’s The Black-E promoted not his conference plans. Rather it was a joint-event with Len McCluskey and featured poetry, music and a little, inconsequential chatter. There were plenty of empty seats.

Politically Corbyn is completely indecisive and easily swayed by friends and foes alike (we saw that over Brexit and anti-Semitism, when he led the Labour Party). Either way, he is not theoretically educated, strategically far-sighted or tactically astute … nor is he a good speaker

He lacks the ability to provide a clear historical narrative, his politics are of the clawingly sentimental kind, his righteous anger always appears feigned and his jokes invariably fall flat. His Liverpool speeches were just about competent, but did not address our differences. His targets were the usual suspects: Sir Keir and the Labour right, Nigel Farage and Reform, Donald Trump and US imperialism. His recipe for success: ‘show respect for each other’ and, by implication, unite under his leadership. So nothing about the purge, nothing about the lack of democracy and nothing about the negative lessons of Labourism.

Your Party’s other two Independent Alliance MPs are noticeably unimpressive. Of course, their 2024 general election victories were amazing. But neither of them are the fighters for socialism that we need. Shockat Adam is an optometrist and runs a small business. His speech was very much that of a well-meaning, middle class political amateur. When he called Jeremy Corbyn a “political rock star”, myself and others near me laughed out loud.

Ayoub Khan was nothing less than embarrassing. A Liberal Democrat since the early 2000s - he served as a Birmingham councillor - he remains a Lib Dem at heart. He told us how shocked he was that they tried to stop him speaking out over Gaza in May 2024. But he could clearly tolerate the 2010-15 Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, its imposition of austerity and the retention of student tuition fees without rebelling. It is worth adding that it was the coalition government under the Liberal, David Lloyd George, which agreed the Balfour declaration in 1917. It committed Britain to establishing a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.

Different order

Zarah Sultana is of a different order. She boycotted the first day in solidarity with those who had been expelled or excluded. That garnered lots of press and TV coverage … and further endeared her to the left. She turned up on Sunday afternoon, along with a little bevvy of supporters, including councillor James Giles, and made her much anticipated “first contribution”.

Her speech was well crafted, well delivered and well received. She praised Jeremy Corbyn, but only to talk about how the old must give way to the new (applause). She attacked the witch-hunt, the lack of democracy, the cynical manipulation. “Worthy”, she said, of the “Labour right” (thunderous applause). She declared herself proudly anti-Zionist, lambasted capitalism, demanded socialism and called for the abolition of the monarchy (thunderous applause and cheering). Shrewdly, she also welcomed the vote for a collective leadership: “a victory for the membership” (standing ovation).

Jeremy Corbyn, Karie Murphy and Len McCluskey were humiliated. Corbyn, on the stage, had to clap now and then. It was clear, however, that inside he was squirming. I almost felt sorry for him ... but, of course, I too joined the standing ovation for Sultana. Effectively she has made herself the leader of the YP left … and is perhaps YP leader in waiting too (not The Leader, with a capital ‘T’ and ‘L’ now, of course).

Should we have illusions in citizen Sultana? No, certainly not. Like Corbyn, she is a career politician. Typical of the Labour left nowadays, she cut her teeth on the National Union of Students executive and Young Labour before winning her Coventry South seat in 2019. Instinctively she still reaches for identity politics. Nonetheless, at least in terms of rhetoric, she is shifting to the left and this is welcome - not least because it gives the forces of socialism and communism a bigger audience.

As for me, I came away from Liverpool experiencing neither the slough of despond nor the bliss of elation. But I did come away with hope … and, to borrow a phrase, “revolution is an act of hope”.⁹ l

1. R Cline ‘Communists plot takeover of Your Party’ The Daily Telegraph November 28 2025.↩︎

2. J Conrad ‘Neither king nor empress’ Weekly Worker November 27 2025: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1563/neither-king-nor-empress.↩︎

3. labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/15258a_21-How-Conference-Works-FINAL-Electronic.pdf.↩︎

4. www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/point-of-order.↩︎

5. www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/globalassets/pdfs/services/corporate/2020/2020---annual-general-meetings---guidance-for-company-secretaries.↩︎

6. G Foote The Labour Party’s political thought: a history London 1997, pp24-32.↩︎

7. While you can take the comrades out of the Labour Party, you cannot take Labourism out of the comrades. Speaking to SPEW’s annual Socialism school, general secretary Hannah Sell argued that trade union affiliation is essential if you are going to classify a party as a workers’ party. This is what she said: “We would add that the Greens are not a workers’ party, because the organised working class - 6.5 million organised in trade unions - has no say whatsoever in its decision-making.” Her ideal is a federal party which allows all socialist organisations to affiliate and has the trade unions at the core. Without that “unfortunately, Your Party, at least in its beginnings, is also not going to be a workers’ party”. So, Your Party should be “approaching trade union executives [ie, the trade union bureaucracy] saying ‘we want to discuss how our MPs can represent your interests in parliament, and how together we can start to build a party in which your union’s members have a collective voice’” (The Socialist November 20-26 2025).↩︎

8. See J Schneider Our bloc: how we win London 2022.↩︎

9. Often, but wrongly, attributed to Peter Kropotkin.↩︎