10 September 2026
Over a year after an impatient Zarah Sultana and a reluctant Jeremy Corbyn announced the formation of a new left-wing party in Britain, the hopes of the 800,000 initial sign-ups lie in tatters. The embarrassingly named Your Party (YP) has no trade-union fractions, close to non-existent polling numbers and little presence on demonstrations, picket lines or other campaigns. In the May local elections it mostly resorted to supporting existing community groups with politics over which YP had no control. Most of the membership has departed, particularly youth, and few of the remaining members have yet been assigned to an official branch. The Central Executive Committee (CEC), elected early this year with much factional wrangling, is tearing itself apart with resignations and motions of no confidence. Corbyn, doing nothing to dispel suspicions that he never wanted a party in the first place, is clearly more interested in his NGO-like Peace and Justice Project. Very few of the general population have even heard of Your Party, still less know what it stands for.
When IBT supporters joined the nascent party in mid-2025, we had no illusions it was, or would become, what is really needed—a revolutionary party leading an independent working class with the objective of overthrowing the capitalist state. We joined because Your Party had the potential to create a political space in which to make progress towards that goal. In the event, the toxic mess of social democracy, left populism, class collaboration, centrism, self-serving bureaucracy, electoral fetishism and endless bad-tempered arguments on WhatsApp exceeded our worst fears. Even so, our short-lived membership enabled some important conversations, connections and political lessons. We met many comrades with a genuine desire to see a mass working-class party put an end to capitalism and saw some, still very limited, developments in the discussions needed to get there.
Political parties are not just collections of random ideas. They represent the material interests of classes or sections of classes, and new parties are generally formed in a process of political struggle. This party had two overlapping sources: the mass movement against the genocide in Palestine that began in October 2023; and supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, including the influx of left-leaning younger members who joined in the second half of the 2010s and left in the wake of the 2019 general election.
The Palestine movement was radical, at times consciously anti-imperialist, but had a cross-class composition and no explicit working-class strategy. It was represented in the YP proto-leadership by four Muslim MPs: Shockat Adam, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed. They were elected as independents at the 2024 general election on the basis of their opposition to genocide in Gaza and for a time formed the Independent Alliance of MPs with Corbyn and (very briefly) Sultana. Within the ranks of the party, at least initially, were younger and more radical Palestine activists with a very different approach.
The ex-Labour members included those who had been comfortable on the Labour Left for decades until they resigned or were pushed out of the post-Corbyn party, some remaining on local councils as independents and in small groups around them. They also included a wave of youth that had hoped for far more from Corbyn as leader, or prime minister, than he was ever capable of giving. After Corbyn’s defeat, these young militants decamped from Labour to activist work in areas such as the Palestine movement or community organising. Both layers waited for half a decade, with varying degrees of patience, for Corbyn to form a new party.
And, of course, there was a self-described Marxist wing—present and former members of established left organisations plus many individuals who had read Marxist ideas but were suspicious of the plethora of groups claiming to be Marxist.
Despite its obvious faults, this was the most significant left split from Labour for a generation, since the Socialist Labour Party established by miners’ leader Arthur Scargill in the mid 1990s (see “SLP: A Postmortem”, 1917 No.21). Unlike many other pretenders since then (e.g., Socialist Alliance, Left Unity), Your Party reached out from the organised left into the working class, and it provided an opportunity for debate and joint work among the increasingly fractured left that hadn’t been seen for decades. Initially, almost everyone came to the party. Proto-branches were formed in local areas, a London-wide assembly, an LGBTQ+ section, Your Party Youth and Students and more—all unofficial, self-organised and largely ignored by a leadership clique that inched forward at a glacial pace, afraid of what it had created. IBT supporters joined this work, helping to launch proto-branches, organising and participating in events and political discussion.
What was the politics of this formation? Ostensibly this was decided at the founding conference held in November 2025 in Liverpool, touted by the organisers as a wonder of democracy, though it was in fact little more than an extended rally. Delegates selected by sortition (lottery) were occasionally allowed to speak to carefully vetted alternative formulations for the founding documents, but the voting was carried out, by delegates and members at home alike, via the Your Party mobile app. A veneer of political debate was provided by the chance to confirm that the short “political statement” would commit the party to “socialism”, “with the working class at its heart”. Around 80% of the delegates voted for socialism and the working class, an indication of the desired orientation of the party’s base.
Yet little was heard, and certainly no debate invited, on the major political questions posed for any party establishing itself to the left of Labour: the military role of the British state in Palestine, Ireland, Ukraine and elsewhere; the repression of political activists and banning of Palestine Action; how a socialist party should respond to the pro-capitalist Greens’ ostensible turn to the left; the need to abolish the monarchy; the anti-union laws that forbid solidarity and political strikes; and how to protect ourselves from the kind of establishment and state attacks experienced by Corbyn as Labour leader. Above all, do we want to tinker with capitalism or overthrow it?
IBT supporters established a Bolshevik Caucus within the party to argue these points and more on the basis of our Bolshevik Caucus Platform. Within the multitude of competing political ideas, we sought to draw clear lines of demarcation on the pre-conditions for building a party that would be of any use to the working class:
“We argue that ‘power and wealth to all’ cannot be achieved until capitalism is overthrown and replaced with a system of collective ownership run by the working class that prioritises human need, not private profit. This is not just a ‘maximum programme’ to be implemented in the future but the goal that informs revolutionary strategy and tactics today.”
In order to have democratic debate about political perspectives, we argued, the party must be open to all those who consider themselves socialists. On the eve of the conference, members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and other left organisations were informed they were ineligible for membership of YP due to their affiliation with another “national political party”, pre-empting the planned discussion of this very topic at the conference itself. Later, this was confirmed with a list of banned organisations. We have many differences with the SWP, and others on the list, but we defended them from this bureaucratic attack (see “Motion to Oppose the Expulsions”, successfully moved by one of our supporters in the Lambeth branch). Such restrictions create an atmosphere of suspicion and political dishonesty and run counter to real and open debate. They are tools of bureaucratic control.
One set of political questions that divided the party centred around the attitude to take to the British state, at home and abroad. As the Labour government sent its weapons and money to support the NATO-led war in Ukraine, the members of Your Party held a range of positions. The Bolshevik Caucus argued that Ukraine was being used as a proxy in an inter-imperialist war between NATO and Russia in which we should take no side, but that our main duty is to oppose the role of the British state, for instance with trade-union mobilisations against weapon manufacture and transportation. Others sided with Russian imperialism, mistakenly assuming that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. And some took the same position as the British ruling class in advocating the defence of Ukraine against Russia. Meanwhile, the pacifist Stop the War Coalition, supported by forces in Your Party from Corbyn to the SWP, just wanted the war to … stop.
Similar issues arose with the US/Israeli (and British-backed) attack on Iran and the subsequent war, with many inside YP unable to recognise that it was necessary and possible to both defend Iran against imperialist attack and defend the Iranian people against their theocratic government. Anti-imperialism cannot be reduced to diplomatic appeals, parliamentary resolutions, reliance on capitalist politicians or support for one capitalist government against another. It has to be connected to independent organisation and struggle for working-class political power. Unfortunately there was often little interest in discussing these key questions, perhaps in fear of the divisions that existed.
Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza was of course universally opposed within Your Party, but that was often as far as it went. There was little appetite for discussing strategies to bring about the defeat of Israel and its imperialist patrons, including assessing the politics of different political tendencies within Palestine and the diaspora. But nonetheless, differences emerged. During the May local elections, the party leadership endorsed independent local groups simply on the strength of their support to Gaza, without much consideration for the class nature of their campaign or their view on other YP policies such as support for trans rights. Meanwhile, in Corbyn’s back yard in Islington, the local proto-branch promoted the election campaign of Amu Gib, a non-binary radical Palestine activist, on remand in HMP Bronzefield, facing terrorism charges for allegedly destroying military aircraft bound for Israel. Eventually, Corbyn was persuaded to endorse their campaign, well after he did so for other Islington candidates, but Amu never received the official backing of the party.
IBT supporters campaigned for Amu, on the streets of Islington, in our YP branches and on social media. Although we do not agree with them on all questions of programme and strategy, the existence of their election campaign highlighted the ban on expressing support for Palestine Action, the consequent terrorism charges against militant activists, the repressive legal system that has kept Amu and others imprisoned without a conviction for over a year, and the need to physically stop British weapons being sent to carry out genocide. It stood out from other “socialist” campaigns in demonstrating how the British state oppresses at home alongside waging war abroad. These ideas need to be extended, particularly into the organised workers’ movement where the real power to stop weapons manufacture and transportation lies.
Amu’s campaign could have been an example of common action that would allow the politically heterogeneous elements of Your Party to debate our differences in the context of collaboration where we do agree. But, as we later noted, the leadership of Your Party simply wasn’t interested:
“Whether holding dual membership or not, socialists in Your Party should seek out all possible opportunities to work together and to debate our differences. At this point, we do so despite the leadership, who have left us to organise our own branches, networks, meetings, conferences, demonstrations, campaigns and other structures and activities. Their fear of real debate about socialist politics is palpable. They dread any working-class and socialist challenge to their political framework of alliances with the Greens, pacifism in the face of British complicity with US/Israeli warmongering and isolated referenda instead of working-class democracy.”
—“Dual Membership, Party & Programme”, 11 April 2026
The most significant example of collaboration on the streets happened outside and in spite of official party structures—the Your Party bloc on the Together Against the Far Right demonstration on 28 March 2026 (pictured above). Initiated by the All London Delegate Assembly, an organisation created by London proto-branches, this bloc was the largest gathering of Your Party members, as Your Party members, that had been seen (or will ever be seen), featuring many proto-branch banners from London and further afield. While word about the member-led bloc was being spread in chats and social media, the official YP channels encouraged attendance without providing even the most minimal information to assemble as an organised bloc.
Corbyn and Sultana both spoke from the platform alongside Green Party leader Zack Polanski, but neither was seen marching with their own members. The Together demonstration provided a useful moment of collaboration but, with its cross-class platitudes of “Love, Hope and Unity”, was nothing near the real united front that was, and still is, necessary to mobilise the working class and its allies to actually stop the far right from taking to the streets. A major focus of our work in YP was arguing for the independent political action of the working class against this kind of cross-class politics that often had little to distinguish it from Polanski.
The beginnings of Your Party coincided with Polanski taking leadership of the Green Party, claiming to be a socialist and presiding over a boost in membership and an even greater surge in left-wing illusions, despite the history and reality of Green councils administering austerity. As Your Party held elections for the CEC at the beginning of this year, a by-election was announced in the parliamentary seat of Gorton and Denton in Greater Manchester. Formerly held by Labour, the constituency became a symbol of the rise of Reform on the right and the Greens on the left to threaten Labour’s hold on power. Debate raged within Your Party on whether to stand a candidate or support the Greens. We were disappointed to find very little agreement with our position that the Greens, as a fundamentally capitalist party, should receive absolutely no support from working-class militants, whether there was a Your Party candidate or not. During the parallel election campaigns, both Corbyn and Sultana, by then heading rival factions for the CEC, declared support for Hannah Spencer, the Green candidate and eventual winner in Gorton and Denton. Much of the membership, including the self-identified left, agreed.
The issue was not simply whether individual Green candidates or policies were progressive in some limited sense. Voting Green or treating the Greens as a political ally necessarily meant subordinating independent working-class politics to a broader cross-class formation. The question was therefore whether Your Party would develop as an independent political expression of the working class or become incorporated into an electoral coalition in which working-class politics were subordinated to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces.
Our arguments were laid out shortly after the election in a speech by one of our supporters on a panel discussion “Not Green Populism but Working-Class Socialism: How should Your Party relate to the Greens?” (see “It’s All About Class”):
“This brings us to Your Party. Looking at the current leadership, it’s a valid question to ask whether there really is any difference between Your Party and the Greens.…
“Your Party is a left split from Labour and many members see this as a project to simply set up a new social-democratic party with roots in the trade unions. It’s true that this often runs alongside a reformist programme that does not seek to overturn capitalism, only make it nicer. On paper, reformism and left-populism are not so different, but they operate in a different context. At the founding conference, members voted 4:1 that the party should be socialist and working-class. Your Party is not firmly rooted in the working class (or anything else), but its members aspire to be. All this creates contradictions, which can be opportunities.”
Given that 80 percent of members wanted a working-class, socialist party, what opposition was there to the course taken by the Corbyn-led leadership? In the CEC elections of January and February 2026, opposition consolidated around the Grassroots Left (GL) slate, publicly led by Zarah Sultana and cobbled together, on the basis of very little programmatic agreement, by a multiplicity of different groups, some with long-standing existence outside the party and others newly formed, perhaps most significant of the latter being the Democratic Socialists of Your Party (DSYP). The process of forming the Grassroots Left slate began with a series of broadly supportable demands about the need for democracy in the fledgling party, but it became the de facto representative of most of the self-identified left, a pretence at unity against the Corbyn-aligned inner circle, which formed its own The Many faction in response. The capitalist press went to town on the theme of Corbyn versus Sultana bickering.
We had a different approach, standing our own candidate on the basis of a full revolutionary programme, while also giving critical support to the GL in other regions for the first (nominations) round because: “the Grassroots Left platform stresses the need for agency to the branches, no exclusions, for the defence of the oppressed, including trans rights, opposition to state repression and calls to ‘bring an end to capitalism’.”
These elections should have been a chance to compare political programmes of the contending candidates, beginning to lay the basis for what the party stood for and the debates that needed to take place. Instead, The Many almost entirely avoided programmatic questions in favour of simply being the faction of Jeremy Corbyn, while the GL presented a varied bunch of individuals as a homogeneous mass, generally in favour of democracy and against capitalism. GL’s published platform did go into more detail, but the underlying differences were never clarified.
To cut through this, we raised the question of cross-class support for the Greens—surely a clear question for anyone claiming to be on the left of a working-class party and a key measure of what they might do in a leadership position. In the second round, in the shadow of the Gorton and Denton by-election, we issued a statement calling to “Vote for CEC Candidates who Don’t Support the Greens!” Very few GL candidates were prepared to commit to even this basic principle of class politics, not exactly inspiring our confidence in Grassroots Left as an alternative party leadership. In the event, they gained only about a third of CEC seats, were frozen out of the “officers’ group” that (alongside unelected officials) really runs the party and have had little impact. Eventually, even some of the successful The Many candidates turned on the leadership group, passing a motion of no confidence that was immediately ignored. At the time of writing, members from both sides have resigned and the CEC is in a stalemate.
Rather than providing a vehicle through which growing disaffection with Labourism could develop into independent working-class politics, Corbyn, Sultana and the forces around them reproduced many of the very political limitations from which YP’s supporters were seeking an escape. The restrictions placed on organised political tendencies, the accommodation to electoral and parliamentary politics and the failure to provide a clear class-independent programme all served to narrow, rather than expand, the political possibilities opened up by Your Party's emergence.
Supporters of the IBT have now left Your Party, not because of a dramatic betrayal or change of line by the leadership, which remains what it always was. The mundane truth is that there is simply nothing interesting about Your Party anymore—the debates have died down and the energetic youth are long gone. The dynamism formed by anger is no longer there—anger against the British state and the so-called “Labour” Party that governs it and anger against the capitalist system and those who profit from it. Your Party’s main figurehead, Jeremy Corbyn, clearly does not care about the party. The (increasingly ex-)membership, even those who were previously his greatest fans, care less and less about him. The members who remain watch Corbyn and his coterie praise the Greens and “community independents” yet plead among the ruins that “it takes time to build a party”. It ends, not with a bang but a whimper. The real struggle now lies outside.
Many others have concluded the same, but the directions they have taken are often variations on one or another of the YP themes, at a smaller scale. The Connections Network, once a useful forum for YP proto branches to compare notes, is drifting without a clear objective except to “connect socialists”. A little more politics is provided by the Socialist Federation (SF), which solicited proposals for political statements and organisational structures to be debated at an online meeting, but seems rather lost in complex organisational proposals and, with echoes of the Grassroots Left, an attempt to build a common programme among those who do not have sufficient political agreement. Our Bolshevik Caucus put forward a motion to the SF founding meeting—a simple proposal that whatever organisational form was created, it should advocate working-class independence and not support the Greens. The motion fell, and we concluded that if the federation could not even agree on that, it was unlikely to agree on anything of much value. More promising, although still in early days, is the Socialist Education & Debate Association (SEDA) that explicitly does not try to create political unity that does not exist, but aims to debate the differences that do.
DSYP, renamed as simply Democratic Socialists (DS), continued for a while, dropping successive layers of members until it consisted of little more than those around the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), whose Weekly Worker delights in relating the latest YP scandal every Thursday. Once the political home of large numbers of young people enthused by the new party but not inclined to reproduce social democracy or left populism, DS recently declared itself “mothballed”.
Both DS and the CPGB are broadly in the self-described “partyist” tradition, as is the Marxist Unity Caucus (MUC) in RS21, which also intervened in YP for a time. There is enough difference in the execution of their party-building strategies to keep them apart organisationally and at times extremely antagonistic, but they share a common political approach. The ostensible objective is the building of a party of various organised tendencies representing different strands of Marxism. Yet, these organisations adhere to slight variations on a specific ideology, harking back to Kautskyism and the Second International, putting “transparency and openness” and the abstract need for a programme ahead of unity of propaganda around that programme, suspicious of the Leninism of the Comintern and even more so of Trotskyism, with a large dose of misunderstanding of both, and presenting socialism as achieved through “extreme democracy” with far less emphasis on the smashing of the bourgeois state.
The partyists talk a lot about political debate, and do engage in political debate, but what is missing are the consequences of that debate. They argue that members of a communist party should accept the programme of the majority even if they do not agree with it. By this they mean that all members of the party must be willing to act on the programme of the majority, but crucially they do not consider common propaganda to be a form of action. Their ideal party would allow public criticism of the majority line on most topics, but typically exclude certain other politics (depending which partyist you are talking to), which are judged to be beyond the pale.
So in principle, partyists agree with Leninists that there are times when it is necessary to split or remain organisationally separate. However, their fear of becoming a “sect” means their threshold for what is split-worthy is very high, and often malleable. In the milieu that formed in and around YP, there is much criticism of this “sect form” (at times not without reason, as much sectarian behaviour has been observed!). But if a sect is defined as a group with its own ideology and common propaganda, then “sects” are exactly what the YP leadership most fears and has taken great trouble to exclude. Programmatically based organisations are tendencies within the workers’ movement. Organisation on the basis of programme, and debate between those programmes, is the only way out of the morass in which the British left finds itself in the wake of the Your Party debacle. In other words, honesty about the differences in our programmes, which can only be tested in practice and in attempting to win others to our view.
There is much agreement about the need for a party and there is no shortage of attempts at new organisational structures. What is missing is a real political battle for the programme of that party through splits and fusions among political tendencies, based on real differences and real agreement, not only around a small handful of issues but on a full transitional programme for power. This is a process that can and should go alongside joint work, again with honesty, not pretending such unity is any more than an episodic alliance, limited to specific issues.
We look forward to continuing discussions and common work with the many comrades we have met and worked with over the past year. Your Party has been a disappointing failure, but the task of building a revolutionary party remains.
Related articles
Bolshevik Caucus Platform (11 January 2026)
Vote for CEC Candidates who Don’t Support the Greens! (9 February 2026)
A Dangerous Trap: The popular front in history & theory (11 June 2026)
Other materials from our intervention in Your Party are available at:
Bolshevik Caucus