09.07.2026

Karie’s clampdown and a mini-me

The botched suspension of three members of YP’s central executive committee is yet another sign of suicidal control-freakery. But, says Carla Roberts, there is a general problem on the left when it comes to free speech

It is hard not to feel a touch of Schadenfreude at the current unravelling of Your Party. For many months, all those who had joined in the hope that YP could become a viable alternative to the rotten capitalist system had to watch from the sidelines, as Jeremy Corbyn’s right-hand woman, Karie Murphy, strangled the life out of it.

She has been micro-managing every aspect of the party: stitching up the launch conference in Liverpool, where participants were chosen by sortition (rather than a democratic delegate system), with motions and amendments selected and written by herself; securing an outright majority for Corbyn’s leadership faction, The Many, in the YP leadership elections; suppressing the nascent branches; and - the ‘crowning glory’ - proscribing leftwing groups and expelling a whole string of socialists.

The aim was always twofold: stop the left playing any role in YP and, once she succeeded with that, stop YP becoming anything more than a tightly controlled, top-down ‘network’. A cushy retirement number for our dear leader, JC. But such tightly run bureaucracies are very fragile things, and sometimes all it takes is for somebody somewhere to make a daft mistake to bring down the whole house of cards, exposing that YP is, in fact, not even good as a network - it is little more than a Potemkin village.

On July 3, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Mel Mullings and Solma Ahmed were informed via email (signed by YP chair Jenn Forbes and secretary Dawn Aspinall) that they would be “suspended” from a meeting of the Your Party central executive committee (CEC) taking place on July 5, because there were “ongoing investigations” against them, to do with their having attended a meeting of the Socialist Federation.

The CEC comrades who were elected on the Grassroots Left slate have produced a formal complaint,¹ in which they make some obvious criticisms. For a start, comrade Wimborne-Idrissi was not even there and, contrary to what the email claims, did not advertise the event anywhere (she is quite critical of SF). And how come they were suspended for attending a meeting of the miniscule SF, which is not banned by YP, while the much bigger Socialist Workers Party welcomed, at its annual Marxism festival taking place the very next day, a certain Jeremy Corbyn?

The comrades also correctly state that, contrary to what the suspension email says, there is actually no “chair’s authority under the CEC standing orders to regulate attendance at meetings where necessary” - Forbes and Aspinall just made that up (and then some).

Then all hell broke loose: when asked about the suspensions during Marxism, Corbyn publicly expressed his “surprise and anger”. This was followed by the news that former MP Laura Smith (YP vice-chair) had allegedly resigned from the CEC altogether. Then an email from CEC member Jo Rust - who, just like Smith, was elected as part of Corbyn’s slate - started making the rounds:

Dear CEC members, it is with huge regret that I write this email. But I feel strongly that it is needed. I have grown increasingly concerned about the direction, tone and style of our party and our CEC meetings. There appears to be no opportunity or option to express concern or dissent. I have actually felt that this is a popularity contest with one ‘side’ over another. I didn’t join YP and work to get on the CEC for this. As a result, I am proposing a vote of no confidence for our chair and our secretary and wish to see them removed from their posts. I have no desire to hold a position of authority myself. I only wish to provide an alternative and credible political party that our communities can vote for.

Best wishes, Jo.

We hear this email might have been leaked by Murphy’s side to stop Rust’s call for a ‘vote of no confidence’ dead in its tracks - but the opposite seems to be happening, with even supporters of The Many slate now publicly voicing their criticisms. Hannah Hawkins, another usually loyal CEC member elected on Corbyn’s slate, has stated in a number of WhatsApp groups that “none of us were best pleased” about the suspensions. It is, of course, worth pointing out that neither Rust, Smith nor Hawkins made any public criticisms before this episode and we hear that they have been extremely quiet during CEC meetings too. Smith is part of the CEC officers’ group, to which all decisions had been outsourced - a fact about which she certainly never complained. There is no resignation statement, no public explanation, no fightback. She has not posted anything on X since May, so perhaps her resignation is of a more personal nature (if she has indeed resigned).

The July 5 CEC meeting was hastily cancelled, and will probably take place this Sunday, no doubt after Murphy stepped in. But the damage has been done. The façade erected by Murphy and Corbyn is clearly starting to fall apart. It seems unlikely that it was Karie Murphy herself who was responsible for this particular mess and we are guessing that Forbes and Aspinall have misinterpreted some order coming down from mount Murphy. They are so used to operating without any kind of democracy and transparency that it probably looked, toi them, like a sensible thing to do (CEC meetings are very tightly run by Forbes and are just a charade to rubberstamp the decisions taken by the officers’ group - ie, Murphy). A fine example of bureaucratic overreach quickly spiralling out of control.

Incidentally, we do not believe for a minute that Corbyn is some kind of victim in this mess or that he is really opposed to the suspensions - only to the cack-handed way in which it was done. He entirely supports what Murphy is doing and has publicly justified the banning of socialist organisations from YP. In fact, he played a similar two-faced role when he was leader of the Labour Party, where he privately assured a number of suspended comrades around the Labour Representation Committee that they had his full solidarity (sometimes he even paid for their lawyers!) - only to watch silently as his general secretary, Jennie Formby, went on to expel them for ‘anti‑Semitism’ and/or ‘bringing the party into disrepute’.

Of course, we know that there are a number of disciplinary actions being brought against GL CEC members: Mel Mullings, for example, had a “hearing” on July 6 over her participation in SF. The case is now “resolved” and Mullings has been reinstated, we hear, no doubt because of pressure from above to make it so. The suspensions of comrades Solma Ahmed and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, on the other hand, seem to have been quietly dropped without a hearing - or, more precisely, they have been overtaken by the looming vote of no confidence against Jenn Forbes and Dawn Aspinall. The investigations looking at the ‘leaks’ of various CEC documents might or might not still be ongoing.

Even the little democracy that still exists in YP is a problem for Murphy and Corbyn. They would rather run YP as they do the Peace and Justice Project, which generates a healthy income without the bother of having to spend time and effort manipulating and micro-managing. Much better to entirely get rid of those who continue to embarrass the leadership by publishing regular reports about CEC meetings.

The few branches that have been allowed to form are clearly so small and insignificant that they do not pose a danger - and many will struggle to hit the 20% quorum.² Some believe that this is a huge embarrassment to the leadership. We doubt it. It should be clear enough by now that they do not assess YP’s ‘success’ by counting how many branches it has or by how well it does in the polls.

The Corbyn clique never set out to build an active, members-led party, despite all the waffle. They were effectively bounced into setting up YP by Zarah Sultana, when she launched both the ‘appeal for a party’ in July 2025 (which was signed by over 800,000 people) and then, after Corbyn had continued to dither, the first membership portal, in September. He has no interest in building a party that organises an active working class in vibrant branches and with a healthy culture of discussion and debate - that kind of party would hold its leader to account. And Corbyn certainly does not believe in the need to build a revolutionary party. He thinks that socialism can be introduced by a vote in parliament - and therefore you need another Labour-type party. He is, at best, a left Labourite in exile. He would go back at the drop of a hat - but there is no chance that Andy Burnham could allow that without being eaten alive by the right inside and outside the Labour Party. Which means YP will continue to serve as a crumbling vanity project for Corbyn - at least until he retires to his allotment …

Leaks

There are a number of less obvious points that should be made in the context of these suspensions. Any Your Party member who might want to check out the standing orders or the code of conduct agreed by their elected leadership would be hard pressed to find them anywhere. They are not published on the YP website.

Unfortunately, the GL CEC members have not published them either, after Karie Murhpy stuck the label ‘confidential’ on these and other documents - despite the fact that they were railroaded through the CEC without any amendments or input from the GL members. They also have not published the full suspension letters sent to the three comrades - nor any details of the other ‘investigations’ that are being conducted. For example, we hear that the complaints against the GL members came from the officers’ group itself. YP members really should be told all of this, openly and transparently. It’s not as if the GL members have much to lose if we are told. They have been entirely sidelined all the way through and cut out of the decision‑making process anyway.

The CEC code of conduct and the standing orders at least have been published by ‘other parties’ - excellent.³ Members should, of course, be able to see how their elected leadership is meant to work!

We think it is a serious political mistake that most GL CEC members continue to stick to rules that are not only entirely anti-democratic, but are clearly being made up on the hoof. In the context of the tight bureaucratic control of YP, a commitment to total transparency and openness should have been the main weapon of GL. Instead, as we have reported, calls by Weekly Worker supporters to publish all documents have been met with accusations of “toxic bullying”. This culminated in a proposal for a bizarre ‘code of conduct’,⁴ chiefly drafted by CEC member Candi Williams, which would have turned the idea of accountability entirely on its head: it would have made representatives from the groups making up the Grassroots Left accountable to the elected GL CEC members! Then there were attempts to hold GL meetings in closed session and ban reporting of GL meetings, led by the Workers Power outfit and its former long-time leader, Richard Gerrard.

Unsurprisingly, this bureaucratic attitude has killed Grassroots Left as a potential opposition platform. Nothing remains but an ill-tempered WhatsApp group of 100 or so people, many of whom just use it to argue that we should join the Greens and/or the Socialist Federation. CEC members elected on the GL slate basically do their own thing. They produce slightly dull, factual reports of CEC meetings and publish some documents, but there never was a collective fightback or active intervention in YP. A couple of them are indeed involved in the Socialist Federation to one degree or another, but the most prominent GL supporter, Zarah Sultana, is staying well clear of that, and understandably so.

In an attempt to ‘hoover up’ what remains of the left around YP, the SF method consists of brushing differences under the carpet. For example, SF contains people in leading positions with very different views on the ‘trans question’ - that would not be a problem if the issue had been discussed. But, no, it has not even come up yet - this particular timebomb is simply being ignored. Ditto the question of social imperialism: the only organisations properly involved, as far as we can tell, are Workers Power and Anticapitalist Resistance, who both want Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham to send more weapons and more financial support to Ukraine’s president Zelensky. Again, this massive issue has not even been discussed. We presume there would be some opposition to this pro‑imperialism, but who knows?

The SF founding conference heard a staggering 32 motions, all introduced with two-minute speeches! The three most popular motions in each of the two categories (‘political statement’ and ‘structure’) were then supposed to be amalgamated, on occasion forcing together political perspectives which are entirely incompatible. The mover of the motion which gathered most supporters, Olivia Presland, felt so strong-armed in this process that she withdrew entirely.

Unsurprisingly, attendance has fallen sharply after that first meeting, from 120 (which The Guardian for some reason blew up to a fictional 250 people) to just 80 at the second conference on June 28 (with around 50-60 actually voting). It was rather hilarious watching speakers boasting how the federation will launch this or that “mass working class campaign” - for example, on the cost of living - while a quick glance at the numbers, political diversity and age range in the Zoom meeting told a very different story altogether.

Worse, SF has continued the same anti-democratic culture of Grassroots Left (and Your Party itself, for that matter): it has barred from its meetings two comrades who have committed the crime of sharing in a WhatsApp group the transcript of the first conference⁵ (which was open to anybody who clicked a button to agree with their minimalist ‘Points of unity’⁶). This is a terrible culture, and the left will get nowhere if we do not start to embrace openness, transparency and democracy.

Bad words

Sadly, the same bureaucratic culture has now stopped the Socialist Education and Debate Association (SEDA) dead in its tracks. We previously reported positively about SEDA - an initiative by Alex Green (formerly of the Spartacist League) and leftwing author Tony Collins. Their draft constitution, which they wanted to present to a founding meeting on July 16, stated that “its goal is to increase the understanding of international socialist principles, programmes, strategy and tactics by a structured but free exchange of information and views, where controversy is welcome as an aid to clarity” (our emphasis).⁷

While we would question why a debate and education association needs a long and complex constitution, we very much welcomed these aims - they stand in stark contrast to how much of left organises. SEDA looked very much like an antidote to SF’s method of ignoring differences and cutting debate short, for example. We welcomed it as a potentially useful tool to overcome the sect culture of much of the left, where you can either shut up if you disagree with the leadership line or you have to split.

However, it seems that SEDA has stumbled at the first hurdle - and before it has even launched, which is quite a feat. In a small organising meeting of about 15 people on June 24, which was planning the July 16 launch, comrade Ian Spencer outlined his plans for an education series on the ABC of Marxism, during which he proposed to tackle the question of ‘Marx and racism’. As part of that, he was going to examine the famous charge that both Marx and Engels were racist towards Jews and black people. Comrade Spencer was going to investigate if they really did express deep racial and anti-Semitic prejudices, as is often claimed by bourgeois commentators.

In that context, he explained that he wanted to look at the five or six famous instances when Marx used the words “nigger” and “negro” in his private correspondence to Engels. There is also the famous essay, On the Jewish question, his critique of Bruno Bauer and the way fake radicals deflect immediate demands for equality. There are passages in the essay which, taken out of context, certainly lend themselves to be misinterpreted as Marx expressing deep anti-Semitism:

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money - consequently from practical, real Judaism - would be the self-emancipation of our time.

Few of Marx’s many detractors have gone to the bother of explaining that Marx was actually combatting the malign anti-Semitism of Bruno Bauer and was advocating Jewish emancipation - something that becomes very clear from reading the text as a whole.⁸ We do not view Marx or any other historical figure as some kind of infallible, god-like being, who never made any mistakes - but clearly it is important to understand the political and historical context (including the fact that Marx’s nickname was “Moor”, in reference to his own dark skin colour and love for Shakespeare’s Othello - a black man). Needless to say, we think these issues would make for an excellent education session and to sharpen our own intellectual weapons, so we can take on those who vilify Marx as racist.

Alas, right at the end of the SEDA organising meeting, a comrade started to object to the earlier use of the full word, “nigger”. Ian immediately apologised “if I have caused any offence”. A brief discussion ensued, where some comrades argued that we should only use “the n-word” in our meetings and should also not show the full word in written form. Quite a few people disagreed with that demand. For a start, we were going to produce reading lists - would we even be able to link to the original sources?

A few days later, on June 30, SEDA initiators Alex Green and Tony Collins put forward two motions, one of which proposed to ban “the use of racist epithets in historical/political references” - the other one sought to ban Ian Donovan and his group, Consistent Democrats (more on that below).

The first motion⁹ is honest enough not to repeat some of the more idiotic interpretations of the disagreement, which run along the lines of “some people just want to be allowed to go around making racists slurs”. That silly charge entirely misses the point, needless to say. Of course, absolutely nobody was or is arguing in favour of participants at SEDA events being welcome to use - or being subjected to - racist insults (ditto misogynistic insults). We have seen many on the left hysterically repeat this nonsense, which really says more about them than anything else.

But there are other, serious problems with the motion. Take the second sentence: “The contemporary meaning and impact of terms is not determined by their historical meaning or the subjective intent of a speaker.” That is ahistorical and logical nonsense. Words constantly change, as does their meaning - which means they are always influenced by the previous meaning. There are many, many words in day-to-day language which have changed into their exact opposite, for example ‘awesome’ (which used to mean ‘terrifying’ or ‘fear-inspiring’), or ‘nice’ (which meant ‘foolish’, ‘ignorant’ or ‘silly’ in Middle English).

This also applies to slurs. The word ‘queer’, for example - in the recent past a vicious insult directed at homosexuals - has been reclaimed and now serves as a proud moniker for anybody who is not boringly straight.

The n-word, horrible as it is, has long been reclaimed by the black community too, particularly in the US - as a way to protest against racism, obviously. A quick search on Spotify brings up dozens of musicians who use a version of the word in their name or as song titles. Among the most famous bands is N.W.A. (Niggas with Attitude), who have sold over 10 million albums in the US alone. Are we seriously to tell them that they should not be using the word?

Some have claimed that only black people should be allowed to use it. What about Asians? Who decides who is black enough to escape censorship? I am being facetious on purpose.

The authors of the motion and their supporters assign almost mystical powers to the full word - with those powers apparently not transferring when you say ‘the n-word’ instead. It is still the same word and everybody knows it. There is the Orwellian implication that, conversely, you could somehow stop racism by banning particular words. Of course you cannot. You can, however, still insult somebody with the sanitised version, depending on how you use it.

Therefore, the “intent of a speaker” very much matters. There is a huge difference between racially abusing somebody and examining the linguistic heritage or cultural and political context of a word. Take Mark Twain’s 1884 classic, The adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in which he uses the n-word over 200 times - entirely on purpose, to realistically satirise and condemn the racism of the American south. A controversial 2011 edition replaced the word with ‘slave’ - which, in the meantime, has become equally loaded and controversial. Many people demand that the book should simply be banned. Perhaps our SEDA comrades would agree?

In this context, we are also troubled to read that the n-word is not the only one that the comrades want to ban: there are also “words of comparable effect”. Richard Gerrard has already added ‘Yid’ to the list. Which presumably means that fans of Tottenham Hotspurs will also be banned, seeing as many of them continue to shout every week how they are members of the ‘Yid army’, despite efforts by management to discourage it. They do not ‘hurl racist slurs’ at each other, needless to say - they have been doing it exactly for the opposite reason, to loudly take the mickey out of the anti-Semitism thrown at the North London club. Elsewhere, he has argued for GL to ban the word ‘Zio’. The list of very bad words is, quite literally, endless and we have been involved in organisations that wanted to ban colourful ‘insults’, such as ‘twerp’, ‘idiot’ and ‘scab’.¹⁰

Offence

This whole sorry episode boils down to the idea that ‘people would be offended’, even if the bad words are examined entirely in the context of a historical source. And no doubt some black people (and many white lefties) would probably be offended. We are also guessing that many other people would not. It was certainly telling that the only person of colour who was present in the SEDA organising meeting argued vehemently against banning the word: a rather symbolic reflection of the deep political problem at the heart of this attempt at censorship. It is extremely patronising, and is based on the idea that people have to be protected and mollycoddled by the enlightened few, who ‘get it’.

But for real Marxists, socialism can only be the act of self-liberation for the great majority by the great majority. It follows that the working class cannot be approached or treated as little children who are incapable of handling awkward, upsetting and complicated questions - or who have to be protected from bad words.

This increasingly dominant culture of ‘taking offence’ is, when it comes down to it, a reflection of the growing replacement of class politics with identity politics among many sections of the contemporary left. This comes, by definition, with calls to restrict free speech, with cancel culture and lists of people who have to be ‘no‑platformed’. This is the total opposite of the kind of culture we need.

There are some comrades, like Barbara Duke from the International Bolshevik Tendency, who have gone to great length to explain that their opposition to both motions has “nothing to do with free speech”. We disagree. This is very much about a culture of free speech, which is absolutely vital for the working class and socialism - such a culture stands in opposition to bans and censorship. Why? Frederick Engels explained the need for the working class to fight even for “bourgeois freedom, freedom of the press and rights of assembly and association. Without these freedoms it [the working class] will be unable to move freely itself; in this struggle it is fighting to establish the environment necessary for its existence, for the air it needs to breathe.”¹¹

The ruling class is extremely well organised and uses many and various paid persuaders to stop the working class from rattling the status quo. Philosophers and journalists, bishops and historians, teachers and media commentators, evolutionary psychologists and establishment politicians - all combine to manufacture and disseminate a floodtide of half-truths, diversionary nonsense and cynical lies.

Marx never thought that freedom of expression was a perfect thing in itself - some kind of ‘be all and end all’. Free speech is not the same as general freedom. But it is one of its preconditions. Free speech allows us to cast a sharp light on what lies under the surface of events and what is kept hidden away and is distorted by the state and the media. This is how we educate ourselves - including about our own history.

Bad people

Yes, the ‘rose’ of free speech comes with ‘thorns’ - there will always be people spreading sick, daft and crazy ideas, including on our own side. But banning them pushes these ideas underground, makes them fester. Instead, we should take them on and seek to defeat them.

That brings us neatly to Ian Donovan and his organisation, ‘Consistent Democrats’ (we are actually not sure if it has more than one member!). CD has been pre-emptively barred from joining SEDA, because some of Donovan’s theories are clearly based on anti-Semitic stereotypes. Our opposition to this ban has been criticised as inconsistent and hypocritical. Didn’t Labour Against the Witchhunt expel him and his former organisation, Socialist Fight? Ditto the Communist Platform in Left Unity?¹² Both times with the active support of CPGB members?

All true. But both times, we were in an entirely different situation. Left Unity was a party project, and we needed to fight as a coherent faction, with principled politics. LAW was fighting against false and trumped-up charges of anti-Semitism levelled against socialists in the Labour Party. We could not have run an effective and coherent campaign if we ourselves had not been able to oppose real anti‑Semitism.

Just like Norman Finkelstein, Donovan believes that Jewish “overrepresentation” amongst the bourgeoisie is a major factor, explaining imperialist backing for Israel. This is nothing new on the left - see August Bebel’s critique of the ‘socialism of fools’ - and it certainly is not the view of just an insignificant niche either. Many people believe that the Israeli tail wags the US dog. Utter nonsense - as, likewise, is the opposite view, that Israel just does whatever Donald Trump says. Israel is an important ally and the attack dog of the US in the Middle East. Moshé Machover describes it as “a phenomenon which is well-known to dog breeders: if you train a Rottweiler to be an attack dog, it can sometimes be very difficult to control.”¹³

SEDA, however, is not a party project - but an initiative to educate and debate. The best way to take on wrong ideas like those Donovan holds - and which are very widespread on the soft left - is to show how stupid they are, by exposing them, openly and in front of the class. Banning Donovan would give him more credence than his daft ideas deserve.We need to tell anybody who shares his views that those ideas may be persuasive, but are utterly confused, dangerous and explosive.

Banning ideas is entirely the wrong approach and the polar opposite of what Marx, Engels, Lenin and many other giants of our socialist history used to do: they painstakingly took on and dissected wrong and harmful ideas (including those on the left) in order to win people over to a principled programme for socialism. As socialists, that is one of our key tasks.

These are the types of arguments we were going to raise against the two motions at the July 16 launch of SEDA. Alas, on July 5, comrades Green and Collins simply closed down the various SEDA WhatsApp groups and announced that they will continue SEDA only with those people who “agree” with the “principle” of having this list of banned words and organisations. In other words, the question will not even be up for “debate” at the launch (should it ever take place). We suspect they feared that their motions might have been defeated and that their view is, in fact, that of a minority.

We hope they change their mind. We cannot think of a worse way to start a ‘debate association’!

1. docs.google.com/document/d/11Nuw6p4CgyQhKVQb8wUovNfrYeuTTjv160wUzSl8Iso.↩︎

2. Letters Weekly Worker July 2 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1592/letters).↩︎

3. docs.google.com/document/d/1CWbV3gV3h50ABF3KAC_plwbw9wI6_0e8R_Jzf5LkT8s.↩︎

4. docs.google.com/document/d/1IkY5KiM3sLX07X0Lhbs7tzJNhtjyCliC64lhxSQoYzk.↩︎

5. deborahwafoulkes.substack.com/p/information-wants-to-be-free-except.↩︎

6. socialistfederation.org/points-of-unity.↩︎

7. acap-bsoc.net/seda-const.↩︎

8. See, for example, Jack Conrad’s article on this question: ‘Marx and Jewish emancipation’ Weekly Worker March 14 2019 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1242/marx-and-jewish-emancipation).↩︎

9. docs.google.com/document/d/1cDK1-pLA8jRu4anGuOodbCZoTRojjgcHkrDJjSk67GM.↩︎

10. See ‘Tell it like it is’ Weekly Worker October 3 2007 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/691/tell-it-like-it-is).↩︎

11. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/02/12.htm.↩︎

12. ‘No place for anti-Semitism’ Weekly Worker September 15 2014 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1026/no-place-for-anti-semitism).↩︎

13. ‘After the ceasefire’ Weekly Worker January 23 2025 (weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1522/after-the-ceasefire).↩︎