Is Your Party finished?

Corbyn really would have been better going in with the Greens. They would have welcomed such a well known figure and he would be able to help them with running campaigns. Instead he decided to set up a new party that was doomed from the start and bitterly divided.
Watching some of the Your Party conference, I felt sorry for the old boy as he must have been upset to see delegates tearing each other apart and various factions jockeying to take over the party. Also some were so extreme they regarded Corbyn as a right winger.

Would the Greens have welcomed Corbyn though? I think he would have had a lot to offer, but I can't think of many politians who are so derided & dissed by the media.
The media don't seem to have noticed that the Greens are left wing as well as being pro-Earth.

I wonder if Corbyn expected it to be like 2015 when he launched Your Party and thought he'd be addressing people singing Oh Jeremy Corbyn. Instead he created a party that seemed to turn on itself and had no policies beyond supporting Palestine, trans rights and hating other parties. Like all far left parties, Your Party was doomed to fail as this type of politics has little support.

Both far left and far right parties struggle to gain sufficient to support win a General Election. All new political parties struggle to get established, or whatever colour in the UK for different reasons- related to forming anything new.

However there is much dissatisfaction in main stream parties such that there has been/is a public appetite for "something different" that some parties are seeking to fill.

I'm not sure Your Party was formed specifically to support Palestine, trans rights and "hating other parties" though as you claim- do you have evidence of that? My understanding is that YP wanted to focus on policies such as public ownership of utilities, taxing the rich and a massive council house building programme. That is its main mission to transfer wealth and power from the few to the many. In essence to serve as a "full bloodied left wing challenge to the current Labour Party, targeting voters who feel unserved by the political mainstream That is main stream Labour Party not far left? YP definelty responded to an appetite that attracted membership subscriptions ( less said of that the better) from a sizeable number.

The reason YP has not been a success to date is more likely because of its failure to successfully launch, its leadership model fallout and the public animosity between Corbyn and Sultana. Not because of "hating other parties" or for supporting Palestine and trans rights.

valdavi

Would the Greens have welcomed Corbyn though? I think he would have had a lot to offer, but I can't think of many politians who are so derided & dissed by the media.
The media don't seem to have noticed that the Greens are left wing as well as being pro-Earth.

I think the Greens are extreme left wing now which is why I can’t rejoice in their popularity even though I’ve always supported much of what they stand for. I don’t like extremes of anything.

Me neither Maybee70 I just hope that Labour gets its act together with a new leader and Chancellor well before the next GE.

MayBee70

valdavi

Would the Greens have welcomed Corbyn though? I think he would have had a lot to offer, but I can't think of many politians who are so derided & dissed by the media.
The media don't seem to have noticed that the Greens are left wing as well as being pro-Earth.

I think the Greens are extreme left wing now which is why I can’t rejoice in their popularity even though I’ve always supported much of what they stand for. I don’t like extremes of anything.

They are anti nuclear, which would destroy 12,000 jobs where I live, and have weird policies like legalising all drugs. When they set out as the Ecology Party, they were a fairly harmless party that supported conservation, protecting the countryside and encouraging humane farming. Didn't get many votes, but far differentt to what the Green Party became.

Oreo

Me neither Maybee70 I just hope that Labour gets its act together with a new leader and Chancellor well before the next GE.

I’m perfectly happy with Keir Starmer.

Oreo

Me neither Maybee70 I just hope that Labour gets its act together with a new leader and Chancellor well before the next GE.

Not a big Labour supporter, but I'd sooner have a moderate Labour government than the Greens or Your Party. I think Starmer not getting involved in Iran and abolishing the child benefit cap has improved his popularity. A Labour/ Lib Dem coalition I could happily live with, or even Labour working with the SNP if they can't get a majority at the next election.
The Greens to me are dangerous and beoming more like a Corbyn style Labour Party with a different name and a crankier leader. Anyone who thinks legalising all drugs will solve the drugs problem is deluded, same as legalising sex work will end abuse of women.

Did it ever really begin? Deluded old fool.

Cumbrianmale56

The problem with Your Party was it was too divided and its conference was like something out of a student union meeting, with endless heckling, walkouts and shouting. Many of the attendees seemed to be either students ot aged far left activists with nowhere else to go. Also a very public falling out between Corbyn and Sultana wrecked the party from the start.

You've hit the nail on the head. I was very involved in student politics and ended up VP of the students union.

What I continually observed, was that very far left or right groups were always in conflict within themselves, arguing about whose ideologies were exactly correct:

I won on a "broad left alliance" ticket which was pragmatic and practical so I agree with others re Corbyn: a man who wanted and really fair and caring society - but his manifesto was a completely unrealistic shopping list promising all for everyone in need - people simply didn't "buy it". He was also at that point in alliance with the ideologues of unelected Momentum who wielded behind the scenes influence.

Just as the far right now has their ideologues that are actually very extreme - think the current US ideas. As well as gross international fundraising...but they too keep having "splits" and people sacked or leaving in huffs.

This is a grassroots party lots involved. It will take a while a ew party so not like the two main parties. Corbyn is not deluded he has been on the right side of history and proven right the war by Blair and Bush and the private finance initiative our NHS etc. The two main parties are the same no difference people want something to see change. Starmer says he is not at war with Iran just defensive but is allowing our bases to be used by USA to bomb inocent civilians in Iran so he is lying. He did say no to bases at start but when the media saying good idea to go to war Starmer changed his mind. Another U turn. I have joined YourParty.

Wyllow3

Cumbrianmale56

The problem with Your Party was it was too divided and its conference was like something out of a student union meeting, with endless heckling, walkouts and shouting. Many of the attendees seemed to be either students ot aged far left activists with nowhere else to go. Also a very public falling out between Corbyn and Sultana wrecked the party from the start.

You've hit the nail on the head. I was very involved in student politics and ended up VP of the students union.

What I continually observed, was that very far left or right groups were always in conflict within themselves, arguing about whose ideologies were exactly correct:

I won on a "broad left alliance" ticket which was pragmatic and practical so I agree with others re Corbyn: a man who wanted and really fair and caring society - but his manifesto was a completely unrealistic shopping list promising all for everyone in need - people simply didn't "buy it". He was also at that point in alliance with the ideologues of unelected Momentum who wielded behind the scenes influence.

Just as the far right now has their ideologues that are actually very extreme - think the current US ideas. As well as gross international fundraising...but they too keep having "splits" and people sacked or leaving in huffs.

Way back in time I was a student at what was Sheffield Poly. Hard left gtoups like the SWP and the Revolutionary Communist Party, an odious bunch who saw the IRA as freedom fighters, always tried to take over every meeting and committee and once pushed someone off a platform because they didn't like their opinions. Most students couldn't stand these ultra left groups and their negative, aggressive behaviour and weird political views. Also you got the impression many of them were upper middle class kids playing at being revolutionaries for a couple of years.
Anyway I decided to stand to represent my site as a site rep on a platform that was apolitical and which was more about improving facilities in one of the halls, which was like something out of the dark ages. My opponent, whom you could class as on the left, but strongly opposed to the extremist minority, fought a similar campaign, but due to better organisaiton won. Both of us wanted simply to represent people whatever their opinions and to make the student union more relevant to the vast majority of students.
It was interesting to campaign and after the result was declared, we both shook hands and went for a drink. This is how things should be.

My respect for Jeremy Corbyn is unchanged but he has a group of abnsolute Charlatans running his his.

IN 40 years of trade union and political activism this is the worst run party I have ever come across. #I am gutted at what it is doing to his supporters.

And our own political landscape has taken a couple of twists since this Thread began.
Starmer is going.
Farage appears to be fading.
Your Party has gone silent.

Cossy

Graceless

Well said Graphite!

I agree with Graphite, and Ilovecheese, it’s become very boring.

It’s also not impossible to try and have a fairer and more equitable society and attempt to level the playing field.

I truly respect Corbyn as a person but he wasn’t a leader, but a good honest man and we would do worse than have more like him.

I would be interested in how you think a more equitable and fairer society can be achieved, given that throughout history this has not yet happened. Do you mean increased taxation from those with wealth to be given in benefits, or taken from those who have studied and worked hard and given to those who havent? Otherwise, how can this be achieved?

Historically, a more equitable and fairer society has been achieved, even if it will never be totally equitable and fair. If you want evidence, have a look at the records of the rates during the nineteenth century or look at the real photos of some of the early nineteenth century slums and compare people's lives with the landed gentry and some business people.

Meandrogog- not yet happened? Crikey- a somewhat deluded and pessimistic view!

I would vote for any party that seeks to build a fairer more equitable society even if all the odds are stacked against them. I would vote to keep out a party that seeks to dismantle the building blocks we already have in place that support a fairer and more equitable society. Here are several defining legislative and political milestones that mark this evolution over the past more or less 100 years- we must make sure they are not lost:

Key political changes that transformed Britain into a fairer, more equitable society include the establishment of the post-war welfare state, the progressive extension of universal suffrage, and the implementation of robust anti-discrimination and human rights legislation.

1 Expanding the Franchise Universal Suffrage
Representation of the People Act (1918): Granted the vote to all men over 21 and women over 30 who met minimum property qualifications.
Equal Franchise Act 1928: Lowered the voting age for women to 21, granting them the exact same voting rights as men.
Representation of the People Act 196): Lowered the universal voting age from 21 to 18, reflecting the changing societal responsibilities of young adults.

2 Building the Welfare State
Beveridge Report 1942 & Post-War Reforms: Formed the blueprint for the modern welfare system.
*The Butler Ac*t 1944 established free universal secondary education for all children and raised the school leaving age to 15
National Health Service Act 1946: Spearheaded by Aneurin Bevan, this established the NHS in 1948, providing free healthcare at the point of use based on clinical need rather than ability to pay.
National Insurance Act 1946: Created a comprehensive social security net to protect citizens from "cradle to grave" against unemployment, sickness, and old age.

3 Securing Civil Rights and Social Equality
Equal Pay Act 1970: Made it illegal to discriminate between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment.
Race Relations Acts (1965, 1968, 1976): Progressively outlawed racial discrimination in public places, employment, and housing. The 1976 Act also established the Commission for Racial Equality.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975: Protected individuals from discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status in employment, education, and training.

4 Human Rights and Constitutional Protection
Human Rights Act 199): Incorporated the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) directly into UK domestic law, allowing citizens to defend their fundamental rights in British courts.
Equality Act 2010: Streamlined and strengthened decades of fragmented anti-discrimination laws. It legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and wider society based on "protected characteristics," including age, disability, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.






Since April- Starmer has resigned and another PM on the way. local elections showed much more fragmented voting patterns.

All of which leads me to believe the Your party is even more doomed than it was a few short months ago. Not a hope of ever winning a GE in three years time and hardly likely to attract many new members either.

It's an interesting question - how many posters vote in a General Election for a party that wants to build a fairer more equitable society and nurture the protections we already have in place?

I know the £ in your pocket is important but does it take precedence? Can we have both?

They don't actually have the first idea of what communism actually is as opposed to socialism.

All they have done in the USA is draw on the ghosts of crazy FBI activities under MCarthy, the witch hunts of the 1950's during the Cold War,

and smear anything that means sharing things out more fairly with that label.

I've tried to actually summarise what a Communist society is supposed to be like, as apart from a period in Cuba, we've never actually had a "proper one"

but this AI summary + added comment will do - and the differences are glaringly obvious.

"Public Ownership: The government or the public owns the "means of production" (farms, factories, and tools). No one can privately own a business to make a profit. No one owns their home, housing is built by the state and rented out

Central Planning: Instead of the free market deciding what to make, a central government plans the economy.

Planners decide how much food, clothing, and housing to produce, and set the prices for everything.No Profit Motive: The goal is to provide for the community, not to earn money.

Welfare: full pensions, schooling, health care, disability care, provided on a "needs" basis.

See the difference?

Agree that we now, in the UK, have a fairer society than that of our grandparents.

Meandrogrog

Cossy

Graceless

Well said Graphite!

I agree with Graphite, and Ilovecheese, it’s become very boring.

It’s also not impossible to try and have a fairer and more equitable society and attempt to level the playing field.

I truly respect Corbyn as a person but he wasn’t a leader, but a good honest man and we would do worse than have more like him.

I would be interested in how you think a more equitable and fairer society can be achieved, given that throughout history this has not yet happened. Do you mean increased taxation from those with wealth to be given in benefits, or taken from those who have studied and worked hard and given to those who havent? Otherwise, how can this be achieved?

A few years ago the French economist, Thomas Pikety, wrote an intensively well researched book, 'Capital in the 21st Century, chock full of data, which clearly demonstrated that post WW2, when wealth was highly taxed and capital was highly regulated, there was a huge improvement in 'equity and fairness' in Western economies. Extreme wealth and extreme poverty are not inevitable. Governments can influence it through their economic policies. They are a political choice. It was only after a complete change in economic direction introduced by leaders such as Thatcher and Reagan that the gaps started to widen again.

Meandrogog- after reading recent posts. do you accept that society in 2026 is now fairer and more equitable than 1926- 100 years ago as a result of Government legislation designed specifically to achieve that?