Controversy mires 'Your Party' registration process. (feddit.uk)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Following on from my previous post regarding the registration email received by 'your Party' subscribed emails, it seems as though the membership sign up site was created by Zarah Sultana independently of the rest of the party. This has been corroborated by a statement released by Zarah on both the YourParty-membership site and X. Stating that the reason for doing so was being pushed out of decision making and an apparent "boys club" methodology to the current decision making.

All of this controversy is very fresh, so it's difficult to get a clear picture, but it seems like today's membership portal was setup as a means to wrestle leverage in ongoing debates between supposed custodians of the founding process. I'm retaining my membership there out of morbid curiosity on what happens to the money etc, but I can't advise others to do the same in good conscience. All in all a dark day for a party that's yet to lay down its founding documents let alone name. Apologies to any who have been misled by my previous post.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

It was nice to briefly have some hope but this whole thing just seems to be lurching towards disaster. I'll stick with the Greens

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

Agreed. A very bleak situation that was completely avoidable.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

To clarify. Her claims indicate that the rules She and Jeremy agreed to, whan agreeing to found the party. Have been broken by other MPs in releasing the road map and shutting her and any other females out of the party management.

She claims Her and JC agreed no docs would be sent out without joint approval. And that the pre conference management of the party would be gender neutral.

jC has not as far as I know expressed an opinion on this claim. She is claiming to be trying to contact him.

Her accusations boils down to non founding MPs trying to take over the early set up of the party in a non democratic way.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

The text of her mail to all members who joined via her site.

A statement from Zarah Sultana MP

Zarah Sultana MP

Posted in Announcements

I want to clarify the situation regarding the membership system for Your Party.

Neither of this week’s emails had the dual authorisation of both myself and Jeremy - which was the agreement made at the start of this process.

After being sidelined by the MPs named in today’s statement and effectively frozen out of the official accounts, I took the step of launching a membership portal so that supporters could continue to engage and organise. This was in line with the roadmap set out to members on Monday and is a safe, secure, legitimate portal for the party. Everyone who supports us should sign up now.

My sole motivation has been to safeguard the grassroots involvement that is essential to building this party.

Unfortunately, I have been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club: I have been treated appallingly and excluded completely. They have refused to allow any other women with voting rights on the Working Group, blocking the gender-balanced committee that both Jeremy and I signed up to.

It is also important to be transparent about why this situation has arisen. I do not believe members will accept Karie Murphy and her associates having sole financial control of members’ money and sole constitutional control over our conference. This undermines the democratic principles we agreed to uphold.

From the outset, we agreed that MOU Operations Ltd - stewarded by Jamie Driscroll, Beth Winter and Andrew Feinstein - would hold and manage funds on behalf of members until the founding conference, at which point they would be transferred to a new entity established democratically. Every penny raised so far has gone to MOU Operations, and this continues to be the case within our new membership portal. This, to be clear, is members’ money - and our members must decide how it is spent.

This arrangement was designed to ensure transparency, accountability and protection against the concentration of financial control in the hands of any one person.

I regret that today’s statement has misrepresented the situation. My actions have been consistent with our shared commitment: to build an open, democratic and member-led organisation. I will continue to fight for a process where members’ money, data and voices are safeguarded, not centralised under the control of one individual.

I am calling on Jeremy to meet with me and agree to make public all agreed structures, processes and decision-making protocols. Doing this will restore hope for our members, and ensure nothing like this can ever happen again. This party is more important than any one person, and we all owe it to the movement to deliver a truly democratic and socialist party.

The democratic founding conference of this party will take place in late November.

I will keep fighting for a minimum programme for maximum democracy, you have my word.

No stitch-ups, no coronations: the members must decide.

Zarah Sultana MP

Member of Parliament for Coventry South

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I mean, it has Corbyn clusterfuck written all over it, really.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Zarah has confirmed she acted independently, but you're right that the mainstream media will have an absolute field day with this. Kills a lot of credibility for the party before it's even established, and I have to wonder whether that was the intention.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

To be clear KS and her supporters inside the party. Confirmed she was forced to act. Due to ex Corbyn staffers seeking to gain control of the party and minimise the democratic nature.

Of course weather folks believe her. Or not is another issue. But if her staffs comments are true. It indicates similar infighting to when he lead labour.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Its a fair point, we don't know what's happened behind closed doors; and a lot of this comes across as tit for tat, the other side are claiming the exact opposite. That she wasn't excluded from any of it, and instead has chosen to act on her own accord.

If we look at the more recent history of their actions. ZS took it upon herself to announce the new party back in July, without the approval of JC or others; which I believe is where tensions started. If you add in her voicing disapproval for JC's handling of what the terminology anti-Semitic means during his labour years back in August, it seems (to me atleast) that there is a clear and consistent pattern of ZS acting independently, presumably to cement herself as the prime candidate for the party; and in doing so, she found herself to be considered a thorn rather than key player by other MP's in the party.

No matter which version of the truth we believe in however. Bringing the voters (and their funds) into what should have been an internal affair, was not the way to go about it. It spoils any chance of mass adoption for the party, and ZS must have known this... Which is why I believe this was less of a gambit to keep herself in the conversation, and more of a middle finger to the perceived boys club, and inadvertently potential supporters for the party.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Personally. And that is all we have.

I found all the comments opposed to ZS. To be worded in a way that made zero accusations.

IE intentionally worded in a way no court can actually claim they accused ZS of anything.

While ZS made some very clear and public accusations. Describing actions she very much will need to prove if other members challenge her.

It's early so we may see more clearly worded comments from the other side once they agree on wording.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Oh of course, and I respect your viewpoint on the matter. It was meant to be one of the founding principals of the party afterall, healthy discourse through disagreement, and i believe that's what we're doing here, disagreement without being disagreeable.

I agree with that assessment. I just think it's our respective opinions on the publicity of ZS' statements that differ; I don't think it's a good idea to handle things in such a public manner, especially whilst trying to gain mass adoption for the party. It feels as though she's leaned into the leftist infighting trope for a while now. Publicly criticizing your co-leader on tv is never a good idea, let alone less than 2 months into the setup, so I'm not surprised things have soured further since.

The letter signed by JC and the other MPs involved did mention their intent to pursue legal action, and with finances involved, it could get quite messy. So I wouldn't expect any detailed or inflammatory public statements from the prosecuting side, given that's the general advice in legal disputes. But that's just pure conjecture on my part.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Yep. I've also been very pleased to share your views.

And am myself a little suspicious of both sides.

Where I disagree is ZS claims. Seem to have been concerned that power was being removed from membership before they had any options to stop it.

If that is true and she is honest. Then public ally and directly is the only way to prevent it.

But I Def think indicating the breakdown before potential members joined. Was important. She failed their.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Judean People's Front vibes

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Isn't this the guy that let boris win by a landslide in 2019

[-] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago

Boris winning was understandable.

Theresa May winning was unfathomable...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Draaaaama!

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025

19 points (91.3% liked)

UK Politics

4270 readers

299 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]