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