logo
Despite the chaos of its launch, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party has struck a nerve

Despite the chaos of its launch, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party has struck a nerve

The Guardian4 days ago
Less than a month into its existence, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new leftwing party is already widely seen as a mess. Its leadership, its launch schedule and even its name: all have caused inconclusive, semi-public rows. The opportunity provided by political novelty appears to be being wasted.
For the many journalists and politicians who always see the left as incompetent and naive, the stop-start, seemingly uncoordinated first weeks of Your Party, as it may or may not eventually be named, have felt like a gift – a summer silly season story after months of grim political acrimony. 'Thank Christ Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are here to give us a laugh,' wrote Sebastian Murphy in the Daily Express. 'Labour's loopy Left have bravely broken free of Starmer's stultification to bring us a political party that is easily the funniest thing since the anti-Brexit centrists Change UK.' Now largely forgotten, Change UK lasted 10 months after splitting from Labour in 2019.
For left-leaning Britons who've had enough of Labour's rightward shifts and intolerance of dissent, and have been hoping for a viable alternative, the new party's launch has been depressing. Why, in times which so obviously require a radical fightback, can't the left agree a clear way forward? Why is it still so dependent on Corbyn, who after 42 years in parliament can hardly be presented as a fresh figure? And where are the nimble strategists that the immensely difficult task of establishing a successful leftwing party is going to need?
Some of the answers to these questions, which British leftists often ask each other with despairing shrugs and eye-rolls, lie in socialism's struggles in this country since the 1980s. These have left the movement with gaps and imbalances, which are exposed whenever it tries to take the initiative.
Yet as well as considering these weaknesses, it's also important to acknowledge that, despite all the confusion and ridicule, Corbyn and Sultana's new party has struck a nerve. It says that more than 600,000 people have signed up on its rudimentary website for updates and information about how to get involved – almost as many people as the memberships of Labour, the Tories and Reform UK combined. In some of the most hostile coverage of the new party, there is a revealing note of alarm. 'Something has actually gone seriously wrong with British society,' wrote Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph, 'if a party such as this could poll at 18 per cent' – the proportion who told YouGov they would 'consider' voting for a new Corbyn-led party. 'It's a rebellion against the broken status quo.'
Superficially, this rebellion seems little different from the half dozen that have tried and failed to break Labour's left-of-centre monopoly over the past 30 years: Respect, Left Unity, the Workers party of Britain, the Socialist party, the Socialist Labour party, the London Socialist Alliance. Well-known leftists such as Arthur Scargill and George Galloway attempted to turn strong local power bases, personal charisma and leftwing credibility into something bigger, at times when Labour was alienating its more radical supporters. A few parliamentary and council seats were won, but rarely for long. The new parties were both too narrow – dominated by one person – and too broad – prone to ideological differences – to sustain their initial momentum. With their ageing figureheads and traditional leftwing sectarianism, the new parties did not seem new enough.
This time, the involvement of Sultana, one of the most digitally fluent young MPs, sends a different signal. So does the involvement of innovative and ambitious political operators, such as Momentum co-founder James Schneider, who helped make Corbyn's Labour leadership, at times, surprisingly dynamic and popular– despite it being widely written off, as the new party is now. Six years on from Corbynism's defeat, there is finally a movement, largely undetected by the mainstream media, of bright, youngish leftwing activists back into the political game.
And yet, as the frictions between Corbyn and Sultana have shown, it remains tricky to unite two leftwing generations, very different in age and levels of political patience – while also appealing more effectively to middle-aged Britons, who grew up under New Labour and often absorbed its centrist assumptions. These difficulties afflicted Corbyn's Labour leadership, and ultimately helped destroy it.
The British left has so often been excluded from power over the past 40 years that it frequently lacks the skills that experience of power can bring: building and sustaining coalitions, maintaining message discipline, creating political organisations that are representative without being too fractious. Truly leftwing British parties, in short, tend to be a bit rickety, yet they must stand up against our conservative political culture's strongest winds.
Then again, such deficiencies may matter less nowadays. The deep discontent and many crises left by 14 years of rightwing rule, impatience with Starmer's methodical but patchy reforms, and outrage at his government's Gaza evasions, mean that many voters are in an adventurous – or reckless – mood. A radical party with a highly divisive leader, thrown-together structure and frequent internal rows already exists, and it's called Reform. Its poll lead suggests that voters are less interested than journalists in party processes, and more interested in stories about what's wrong with Britain, compellingly told. Whether at rallies or on social media, Sultana and Corbyn are just as capable of this as Nigel Farage. A new poll shows that Reform voters strongly prefer Corbyn to Starmer, which suggests that the new party could take Reform votes.
Reform has more media backing than the new party ever will. Yet it's likely that rightwing journalists will keep giving the leftwing party publicity, and even some favourable coverage, in order to hurt Labour. So the new party will need to pull off a balancing act: keeping its personalities and factions happy, developing populist but not fantastical policies, and wounding the government without helping Farage into Downing Street.
Labour loyalists will say that a left divided is a left defeated. But if they truly believed that, Starmer's party and government would be much more pluralist. What these loyalists really think is that the left should only ever be divided on their terms. That entitled and coercive logic has now had consequences. A new leftwing party, risky and imperfect, could be here to stay. This time, it's possible that our politics will never be quite the same again.
Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NATO to coordinate regular and large-scale arm deliveries to Ukraine. Most will be bought from US
NATO to coordinate regular and large-scale arm deliveries to Ukraine. Most will be bought from US

The Independent

time10 minutes ago

  • The Independent

NATO to coordinate regular and large-scale arm deliveries to Ukraine. Most will be bought from US

NATO started coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine after the Netherlands said it would provide air defense equipment, ammunition and other military aid worth 500 million euros ($578 million), most bought from the U.S. Two deliveries are expected this month. The equipment that will be provided is based on Ukraine's priority needs on the battlefield. NATO allies then locate the weapons and ammunition and send them on. 'Packages will be prepared rapidly and issued on a regular basis,' NATO said late Monday Air defense systems are in greatest need. The United Nations has said that Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians. Russia's bigger army is also making slow but costly progress along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Currently, it is waging an operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a logistical hub whose fall could allow it to drive deeper into Ukraine. European allies and Canada are buying most of the equipment they plan to send from the United States, which has greater stocks of ready military materiel, as well as more effective weapons. The Trump administration is not giving any arms to Ukraine. The new deliveries will come on top of other pledges of military equipment. The Kiel Institute, which tracks support to Ukraine, estimates that as of June, European countries had provided 72 billion euros ($83 billion) worth of military aid since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, compared to $65 billion in U.S. aid. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said that 'American air defense systems and munitions, in particular, are crucial for Ukraine to defend itself.' Announcing the deliveries Monday, he said Russia's attacks are 'pure terror, intended to break Ukraine.' Germany said Friday that it will deliver two more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine in the coming days. It agreed to the move after securing assurances that the U.S. will prioritize the delivery of new Patriots to Germany to backfill its stocks. These weapon systems are only made in the U.S.

Prison system was days from ‘total meltdown' three times under last government, review finds
Prison system was days from ‘total meltdown' three times under last government, review finds

The Independent

time10 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Prison system was days from ‘total meltdown' three times under last government, review finds

Prisons across the UK were 'on the brink of collapse' on three occasions after Rishi Sunak 's last government refused to cut the numbers in jail, an independent review by a former prisons watchdog has revealed. Dame Anne Owers, former chief inspector of prisons, wrote in her 72-page report titled 'Independent Review of Prison Capacity' that the overcrowded system was 'in crisis' between autumn 2023 and the summer of 2024. At one point, there were fewer than 100 spaces left in adult male prisons, with the network at times 'running very close to the edge of capacity' and 'within three days of meltdown', the report said. It remains at nearly 97.5 per capacity, despite Labour's introduction of several early release schemes. Officials were so anxious about potential breakdowns that they maintained an audit of every decision and document 'in case there was a public or parliamentary inquiry', the report found. Interviews for the review found that former ministers and senior officials 'expressed frustration and sometimes anger' at the repeated refusal to back contingency plans, with many convinced that delaying tactics from No 10 were deliberate. 'Many believed that the default position was to do as little as possible as late as possible, with the consequence that the system repeatedly reached the brink of collapse,' Dame Anne said. Pressure on the criminal justice system is set to ramp up this weekend, as police warn they may arrest hundreds of people planning to show support for Palestine Action. Forces are also gearing up for further protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers in Greater London, the North East and East Anglia. Commissioned by justice secretary Shabana Mahmood in February, the review suggests ministers only secured agreement for early release powers when prisons were literally days from being overwhelmed. 'Although departmental ministers were convinced by mid-2023 that some form of early release was both necessary and urgent, this required prime ministerial agreement, which was not forthcoming until the system was within three days of potential collapse, and only in incremental stages,' Dame Anne wrote. From mid-2023, Alex Chalk, who served as justice secretary at the time, reportedly urged the government to approve an early release scheme to free those serving standard determinate sentences. But the report found that his proposals were repeatedly rebuffed. 'Without exception, all those the review spoke to expressed frustration and sometimes anger at the reluctance to accept and then act on the well-documented and imminent crisis, or to agree any coherent plan to avert it,' Dame Anne After the general election was called in May 2024, the report discloses that Mr Sunak convened emergency Cobra meetings to discuss 'invoking emergency powers' to release prisoners early should the system collapse. 'This might be necessary to avert the risk of public disorder if the criminal justice system collapsed during the election campaign,' the report disclosed. The Sunak administration later deployed early release schemes on three occasions, using compassionate grounds provisions to ease pressure as jails neared capacity. Labour minister Ms Mahmood said the report 'lays bare the disgraceful way the last Conservative government ran our prisons'. She said: 'They added less than 500 cells to the prison estate over 14 years, released over 10,000 prisoners early under a veil of secrecy, and brought our jails close to total collapse on countless occasions.' A Conservative Party spokesperson said: 'In office, the Conservatives rightly listened to the public demand to see criminals punished with proper sentences, and to tackle the capacity issues we had plans to use prisons abroad. Labour scrapped those plans and instead chose to release violent criminals back on our streets. 'Labour aren't serious about tackling these issues. They blocked our deportation bill that would have mandated the deportation of all foreign criminals. Whilst Labour and Reform want shorter sentences, the Conservatives will make no apology for ensuring that heinous criminals are kept off our streets and behind bars.'

Trump to punish banks for dropping customers
Trump to punish banks for dropping customers

Telegraph

time11 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Trump to punish banks for dropping customers

Donald Trump is preparing to punish big banks over their alleged discrimination against conservative customers. The White House is drafting an executive order that will impose penalties on financial institutions for dropping customers based on political grounds. A draft of the order, which was seen by the Wall Street Journal, directs regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. Under the order, which could be signed as early as this week, violators face severe monetary penalties and other disciplinary measures. It also calls on regulators to strike policies that might have contributed to banks dropping certain customers – a practice known as debanking. In the UK, the debanking of Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, by Coutts in the summer of 2023 led to a national scandal. His accounts were closed down after the private bank, which serves the Royal family, decided his views 'do not align with our values' and that he posed a 'reputational risk'. A dossier – which Mr Farage described as a 'Stasi-style surveillance report' – later revealed the bank had cited his Brexit comments, his closeness with Mr Trump and his views on LGBT rights among many reasons he was not 'compatible with Coutts'. NatWest, which owns Coutts, paid Mr Farage an undisclosed sum in March this year to settle the long-running dispute. US banks have been fearful about being the next target of the Trump administration, following his attacks on universities and big law firms. The draft executive order did not name a specific bank, however Mr Trump in January accused the CEOs of JP Morgan Chase and the Bank of America, the largest US banks, of refusing to provide services for conservatives. Both banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'Woke capitalism' The criticism of Wall Street giants comes amid growing accusations from conservatives that financial institutions were engaging in 'woke capitalism' and unfairly cutting ties with businesses perceived to be aligned with the political right. Cryptocurrency companies have also said they were shut out of banking services under the Biden administration. Banks have said their decisions are based on financial, legal or reputational risks. In March, the Trump Organisation, which serves as a holding company for most of Mr Trump's business and investments, said it was 'debanked' by Capital One, America's ninth largest bank. The conglomerate sued the bank, alleging it was guilty of 'egregious conduct' by closing more than 300 of its accounts – which it called a 'clear attack on free speech and free enterprise'. The Trump administration is pursuing a broad reform agenda aimed at modifying rules governing financial institutions, including capital requirements, arguing that such action will boost economic growth and unleash innovation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store