Your Corbyn/Sultana Party - Discussion thread

[fromorbit]

The new left party is going to have significant implications for gender and sex discussions on the left in the UK and in wider political debate as well. Lets talk about it.

Four of its prospective MPs are Gaza independents whose votes and comments in the Commons indicate a social conservative background . One of them Adnan Hussain has already got into a row on X with prospective members over his social conservatism.

The hilarious breakdown of the Islamo-left alliance
The progressive left has suddenly noticed that most British Muslims are not exactly woke.
This uneasy marriage got a reality check last week when a Green Party councillor and practising Muslim, Mothin Ali, appeared reluctant to sign a set of ‘pledges’ on behalf of the LGBTQIA+ Greens, Feminist Greens and other similar groups. The MP for Blackburn, ‘Gaza Independent’ Adnan Hussain, then waded into the debate. ‘It’s no secret that Muslims tend to be socially conservative’, Hussain said. ‘Is there a space on the left to create a broad enough church to allow Muslims an authentic space, just as it does other minority groups?’
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/04/the-hilarious-breakdown-of-the-islamo-left-alliance/

The initial statement for Your Party focuses on poverty, fighting the system and Gaza, but makes no mention of progressive social issues, . This already signals something significant.
https://www.yourparty.uk/statement

Zarah Sultana on the other hand has already signaled out trans rights as a key principal in a recent interview which has received push back from others. Discussion here:

The Elephant in the Room for Zara Sultana’s “Your Party”
https://labourheartlands.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/
But here’s the rub. Sultana also pledged to “resolutely” advocate for a pro-trans socialist programme. She insists these discussions must happen openly and democratically.

That sounds fine in theory. In practice, the left has already shown itself utterly incapable of having this conversation without collapsing into authoritarian cancel culture.

Can the Left Have an Honest Trans Debate Without Cancelling Women?

For years, women who raise legitimate questions about the impact of gender self-ID on female-only spaces, or about the safeguarding implications highlighted by the Cass Review, have been branded as bigots and driven out of the movement. “Demonising trans people” is often code for “asking difficult but necessary questions.” If Your Party repeats this mistake, it will bleed support from countless socialist women before it even begins.

The truth is, many women will not get involved in this project precisely because of the Corbyn–Sultana line on trans issues. Others may hope the problem quietly goes away. It won’t. Nor is this a side issue: women’s rights are not negotiable add-ons to socialism; they are foundational. To ignore them is to build on sand.

TAs online and who are planning to join are already girding up for war, it is looking messy.

I can see a number of factions inside the new party who are going to make things complicated:

Muslim social conservatives - as mentioned they will be a major part of the party's voting bloc.

Old school Marxists who regard gender ideology as neo liberal capitalist identity politics and a distraction from class.

Realists who will see gender stuff as a marginal issue which needs to be sidelined because it is so toxic and unpopular with the general public.

Last but certainly not least actual left wing feminists who see through gender nonsense and are not going to be quiet about it !!

I expect fireworks over gender at the the party's initial conference supposedly to be held in November. TAs will attempt to make genderism a key principal of the party and will face resistance. Whether it happens or not it will be another nail in the TAs attempt to pretend the left inherently back neoliberal capitalist ideas like genderism. The big terfy mother elephant is going to be at the conference because women keep doing awkward things like existing and saying things.

Corbyn's position is going to be a focus in this because for all his occasional signalling on trans issues like stating pronouns and saying mantras it is not a core issue for him, and moreover he doesn't believe in it narrowly . His circles have long contained gender critical people who he has refused to cancel, because Corbyn for all his faults believes in open debate. So I think this could be a wedge issue between those around Sultana and Corbyn. There are already signs of disagreements between them over other issues like antisemitism:
Sultana: Corbyn 'capitulated' on antisemitism definition
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79lr40rqelo

On one level I get what you mean about Musk being a distant irrelevant figure. Otoh I DO think his transhuman stuff is disturbing and he does keep trying to interfere in our politics (supporting TR over Farage, addressing the Kingdom rally).I don't like his talk about chips in people's brains at all. We need to be careful the government doesn't try anything weird here.

Because to be ' working class' is no longer aligned to being in poverty or not to the extent that you want to break down the constructs of society. Many working class people would say their heritage is working class - through their background, where they were brought up etc. But they often are ' of capital' because they are business owners, self employed, own their own homes etc. It's cultural not economic. Marxism has always been a middle class hobby. People who have taken their comfort for granted because they have never had to live in poverty, including poverty of expectation. What does ' class conflict' mean? According to Marx it requres the working class to be so downtrodden that they overthrow the arisocracy. Conveniently, the next stage is that the educated middle classes take all the means if production until the poor uneducated downtroden working class are taught the proper way- by the middle classes who are also conveniently the proles, but a ' more equal than others' type of Prole because of their superior education and understanding. Obviously this stage takes a few decades to achieve but its OK because the means of production are controlled by those nice middle class proles. There has always been a fetishisation of the working class on the Left that somehow there is honour and romance in being poor and downtrodden. Much of the Left have rejected the ' working class'- maybe because they have been a crushing disappointment in terms of doing any overthrowing of the aristocracy- and have transferred their hopes onto ' marginalised' groups- trans women- middle class men- and the non working.

Agree with all this. It's unfortunate people have these pie-in-the-sky ideas still when pragmatic action is what we need.... George Orwell must be rolling in his grave that people are still obsessed with communism..

No (and as we can see from some of the Muslim MP's in Your Party to my surprise) is that social conservatism doesn't mean rowing back on women's rights. For example there are people innthe Labour government who have strong religious convictions ( Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmoud) yet they have not campaigned against womens rights. That's more, I think the view from the more fundamentalist religious groups which are more Hard/Far Right. It would be more practical than ideological. Concentrating on things that would improve the lives of people in communities- jobs, services, community, nit being dogmatic in their ' red lines no debate nonsense. The Left as far as I can see has become identity politics obsessed, campaigning rather than about helping communities ( all communities not just the ones they decide are worthy), obessed with the 'most marginalised' whoever they decide they are, showoff virtue signalling.

Why don't you try and just listen to people, then, without imposing your ideological structure onto what they say about themselves and their lives?

Oh Gosh maybe I'll do that, thanks. Any other patronising bollocks you'd like me to try while I'm at it.

If I try really hard I might even be able to do that while happily admitting that there are some things people say about themselves and their lives that I don't understand.

Nobody talked about 'identifying as' working class, anyway. What does that even mean?

It means if you ask them their own opinion of what class they are, they say "working class". As opposed to someone else's opinion which may be based on different criteria or a different conception of class.

That sounds ideal. I hope that sane people of all stripes can rescue Labour. I'm still a bit sceptical of Your Party but maybe it could be a force for good.
But when you say you're surprised, do you mean that you thought some Muslims in Your Party might line up behind trans ideology. I know there are elements of that in Iran etc but I think that was probs unlikely (and still is) bc even if some did agree with that, I'm sure few or none would agree with the way TRAs have involved kids & teens or the fact that surgery isn't a priority for many..

No I didnt expect them to line up behind trans ideology, I just mean Im pleasantly surprised by what I've seen on this thread by what they have said in general. I think the only people not expecting an obvious split between thr TRA'S andcthe Muslim MPs was Zahra Sultana (who surely was brought up Muslim even if she is now secular)

@RainbowBagels

Because to be ' working class' is no longer aligned to being in poverty or not to the extent that you want to break down the constructs of society. Many working class people would say their heritage is working class - through their background, where they were brought up etc. But they often are ' of capital' because they are business owners, self employed, own their own homes etc. It's cultural not economic.

This is interesting. So if somebody says their heritage is working class but they are actually, now, economically "of capital" - then why would anyone expect the Labour party, which was formed precisely to promote the interests of labour, not those of capital, to still represent that person's interests? (As many seem to be doing on this thread and elsewhere.) And why would anyone expect an unashamedly socialist party like Your Party to do so, when even the most basic understanding of socialism makes clear that it means the opposite?

It may well be culturally important to someone what job their parents did, which pub they go to or whether they say tea or dinner, but those are not the fundamental things that define the reality of class conflict. So isn't much of this anger and sneering about "The Left's" supposed middle class hypocrisy really just about people wanting to maintain an emotional attachment to a class which, in actual economic terms, they no longer belong to?

Understanding requires you to actively listen to people, though, rather than judging them through the lens of a political ideology.

You talk of 'being patronised', whilst simultaneously dismissing alternative perspectives with the implicit suggestion that some people just don't know what is really good for them - if the teleology of their life does not conform with your preconceived ideas of what it should be. And you don't seem to take too well when being challenged on your ideas, either

You're still talking about ' class conflict though. What does that mean? Is it just ' smash the Rich? How? Who are 'the Rich?' What if Elon Musk has all his money taken away and redisributed. Then what happens next year? Smash Capitalism and replace it with global socialism? Its been a theory for 100 years. How is trans rights and Palestine about class conflict? It's all ideological theorising about things that dont actually practically address people's everyday concerns.
I didnt say the middle class socialists were being hypocritical. They are doing exactly what Marxist Socialism is all about. But it doesn't do anything to improve the lot of the poor. It never has. It's an ideological talking shop. Maybe that's the point.
The Labour Party was formed to serve the interests of people who work- collective bargaining, ensuring workers had rights etc. In order to represent the rights of workers you need to have work. And like it or not, in a capitalist globalised world in order to have work you need to create the conditions for people to create work for people to do. Only some people are willing and able to do that, and they will become the ' owners of the means of production'. Yes they should be taxed fairly and not be allowed to take the piss when they are benefitting from public services but they are not the enemy. Labour was not set up as a Socialist party. As well as unions, it was also set up by Quakers ( a religious group) amongst others. If Your Party wants to be openly Socialist and engage in ' class conflict' then that is a middle class hobby. They will get as far as all the other Socialist parties- of whom they are many- because people dont vote for Socialist utopias based on class conflict. They have always had to have it imposed on them.

So, you'd rather people 'stay in their lane' in order to bring about the revolution more quickly, rather than work on improving their conditions and life chances?

I'd love to know where Corbyn and/or Sultana have explicitly said it's going to be a socialist party based on class struggle. As far as I can tell from listening to people like Feinstein who you have to assume have the inside track, it's going to be a "left wing" omnicause party with Palestine as the crazy glue holding it together.

There are people involved, particularly in the groups descended from Militant, who might want an emphasis on class, but they don't seem to be setting the tone.

The nearest thing we've seen to a class analysis has come from Adnan Hussain pragmatically observing that working class Muslims and working class whites in Blackburn have many interests in common, and that seems to have made him extremely unpopular with the baizuo.

Well, that's s not really what they're for, is it? They are supposed to be representing their members' interests. I did find myself recently considering that in fact were they representing government's interests now, given Labour are in power, and the push for a.larger state does suggest shifting power from business to government, via the workers ...

I agree. Unions take subs to representvtheir members- negotiate on their behalf with employers in relation to pay and conditions.

Sorry, what I mean is that it's unfortunate that the more vulnerable (self-employed and precariously employed) workers don't have unions or not to the same extent..

This.

@TruckDiver

Do you really not grasp that most people don’t see social class the same way as you do? Also the Labour Party frequently represents the interests of people “of capital” ie its middle class supporters and their middle class luxury beliefs.

"join Your Party so you can have someone to talk to" has to be one of the most plaintive political appeals in years

https://nitter.net/jeremycorbyn/status/1972227901023301841#m

Class conflict simply means that the material interest of one class is in conflict with that of another. Actions that serve the interests of one harm the interests of another. I could give examples but they are numerous and obvious, I think I did earlier and I'm pretty sure you know this anyway.

But I would turn the question back and say if class is not about class conflict, what IS it about? You seem to think it's only about culture or "heritage", which is fine I suppose - but what does that actually mean in terms statements on this thread like the accusation that the Labour party no long serves the interests of the working class? Or that socialist parties like YP won't help the working class? Or that it would be interesting to see a genuine self-formed, self-interested working class party? If the only thing separating people into classes is culture, and that can exist completely independently of a person's economic relation to others, then what relevance is the government in serving some classes and not others?

The logical conclusion of your approach is not a debate about who serves the working class, or any other class, or who should, but that class is now meaningless or irrelevant as a genuine economic determinant in people's lives. That's an idea that has some support, although I don't particularly agree with it.

But if you reject the whole concept of class conflict, then you reject the idea that a government, Labour or any other kind, can serve the interests of one class over another.

But I've just been told that many working class people are "of capital". So therefore serving capital doesn't = serving the middle class, or not serving the working class, right? It's completely independent of what you seem to be describing as "class".

So you can either abandon the concept altogether, or explain what you actually mean by the government serving one particular class, if class is not defined by economic relations.

The idea seems to be that the government should run the economy well, not get into too much debt, keep inflation and unemployment low etc. etc. These are all perfectly admirable aims and will serve everybody's interests to the extent that they have a stake in the prevailing economic system.

That is, they will serve business owners, workers, welfare recipients (maybe), the self employed, non-working property owners, and so on. "Working class" people could be any of those, as could "middle class" people.

Fine. So what has class got to do with anything? Can you give me an example of something the government could DO that would "serve the interests of the working class" specifically, more than the interests of any other class?

This is a great post - can I ask to clarify a point though? You say that the traditional blue-collar trades are wealthier than middle class public sector.

But otoh ArabellaSaurus here wrote that unions are full of middle class members and that most working class are self-employed or in precarious jobs.

But then as SionnachRuadh said, tradesmen are often self-employed, which ofc "woke Marxist' types are ignoring to focus on junior doctors and headteachers.( Obvs they have valid issues too but are not WC)

Would you say some trades are doing well but not others? How many tradespeople are wealthier than mc public sector workers? I know there's wealthy tradespeople but is that the majority?

Also RainbowBagels I agree with you on the Houthis - I think probably though many (stupid) supporters know that their trade attacks will raise prices and cause goods shortages for WC but think this is an acceptable price to pay if it ends the Gaza occupation (which as we know many erroneously regard as a genocide).
I oppose a lot of the Netanyahu Gov 's actions in Gaza, but I certainly don't agree with these people, they ignore Hamas' ultimate responsibility & countless evil actions, and miss the point that the Houthi attacks are unlikely to stop Israel so raising prices for people isn't helping anyone.

It's a bit like the 'Queers For Palestine' movement, some are complete idiots but others understand the danger Hamas etc pose to gay people but argue that all Palestinians, including gay ones, are in more danger from what they believe is genocide and unfair bombing & deliberate starvation from Israel.

I don't agree with them either, I suppose I'm just thinking that the issue with these types of people is that they believe incorrect narrative re Hamas, genocide, starvation & bombing & so since they believe this whole narrative which has Israel committing huge atrocities,, they see opposition as the priority, by an means even with knock-on effects to wc and others.

It would be an understandable position if there really were all those atrocities going on, but as there are not, it is incoherent & more than that, harmful & dangerous.

That's how it is for many arguments: if people believe mutually incompatible premises it's extremely hard to reach consensus. Similar for abortion for one, since those who believe ANY abortion is murder can coherently justify total bans.

Can I ask which kinds of jobs the working class people do who 'make far more money'?

Bc as pps have said, self employed tradespeople and precariously employed people make up a lot of the working class, and are less supported by unions than many middle class people are.

I know there are wealthy tradespeople, but is that the majority?

Builders and pretty much all specialists in the construction industry - roofers, scaffolders, electricians etc. Plumbers, chippies etc. in London and maybe similar big cities, I don't know, though not necessarily elsewhere.