Britain’s newest political party consists of two disruptive ideologies completely out of touch with the modern West
In his famous political tract – The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, published in 1852 – Karl Marx proffered the generalization that “history repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Marx saw Napoleon’s demise as tragedy. Having been born in the German Rhineland – which Napoleon had temporarily dragged into the progressive orbit of the French Revolution – Marx, like all progressive German political thinkers of the 1840s, was bitterly disappointed by Napoleon’s defeat in 1815.
From this perspective, he viewed Louis Napoleon’s coup in 1851 – in which Napoleon’s authoritarian and inept nephew overthrew the second French republic – as an unseemly farce.
Observers who witnessed the recent initial Your Party conference in Liverpool could easily have walked away believing that old-style socialism and contemporary left progressivism had descended into the realm of farce.
What occurred in Liverpool, however, went beyond farce and degenerated into utter absurdity.
The Your Party is a new revolutionary socialist and progressive leftist party created earlier this year by two refugees from the UK Labour Party – the old-style socialist Jeremy Corbyn and the progressive leftist activist Zarah Sultana.
The new party seeks to fuse Corbynite socialism with woke progressivism – with the aim of attracting enough working class votes to enable it to implement its revolutionary political program.
Things, however, did not go well at the Liverpool conference. A bitter clash between the two party co-founders, Corbyn and Sultana, took place on the first day of the conference – which proved that Corbynite socialism and left progressivism are ideologies that have reached their use-by date.
Corbyn was driven out of the Labour Party in 2024 because the party had long ago, under Tony Blair, rejected his brand of socialism – and Keir Starmer regarded him as an embarrassing anachronism. Corbyn’s mentors were Michael Foot and Tony Benn – and under Blair he had vegetated on the back bench.
Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in 2015 by default, as a result of the party’s electoral defeat and a restructuring that allowed members – rather than members of parliament – to elect the leader.
Corbyn signed up thousands of new members, who elected him leader. The vast majority of Labour MPs never supported Corbyn – and his crushing defeat by Boris Johnson at the 2020 election ended the party’s brief flirtation with Corbyn’s brand of atavistic socialism forever.
Corbyn’s defeat made it clear that the British working class rejected Corbynite socialism – as they had Michael Foot’s version in 1983 – and much preferred Johnson’s brand of “levelling up” conservatism. Subsequently, working-class voters have flocked to support the right-wing populism of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which has denounced all woke ideologies and vowed to curb mass immigration.
Sultana left the Labour Party earlier this year because it was not sufficiently committed to the woke ideologies that she so fervently embraces, especially transgender rights and open borders – both elite ideologies that have never garnered any support amongst economically displaced working-class voters in the UK.
The partnership between Corbyn and Sultana was, therefore, always a very uneasy one – and it was hardly surprising that the divisions between them broke into open warfare at the party conference in Liverpool last week.
The conference was attended by some 2,500 delegates, many of them trans activists and members of various obscure left-wing political sects.
Each co-founder had very different views as to how the party should be structured. Corbyn wanted a traditional party structure with a strong leader – presumably himself. Sultana wanted a party directly answerable to the membership and ruled by a committee elected by members.
Party members passed motions supporting Sultana on these key issues – thereby, in effect, sidelining Corbyn from the party he had co-founded.
After boycotting the first day of the conference, at which Corbyn spoke, Sultana reappeared on the second day and delivered what can only be described as an extraordinary speech setting out the party’s political program.
Corbyn applauded the speech, so he must be taken to be in complete agreement with it – a sure sign of his complete lack of political judgment and inability to denounce woke extremism.
The party program, as enunciated by Sultana, contains the following policies:
abolition of the monarchy;
nationalization of water, energy, transport, communications, banking, finance, food and construction industries;
open borders;
strengthening of transgender rights;
shutting down the Israeli Embassy and pushing for the abolition of Israel and the creation of a single state in Palestine;
having Keir Starmer, David Lammy and other Labour politicians prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for war crimes;
more generally, “taking down the rich and powerful parasites” that rule Great Britain in a manner not specified by Ms. Sultana.
There is, of course, an air of utter unreality about this program. It is a strange utopian mix of Corbynite socialism and woke extremism – infused with a good dose of “magical thinking.” No political party that was serious about winning office would consider adopting it for a moment.
Such an outrageously irrational and undeliverable program could never appeal to a majority of UK voters – even amongst those displaced groups that Sultana sees as comprising the voting base of her newly founded party.
One can well imagine the reaction of working-class voters in the northern “Red Wall” seats at being told that they must vote for the abolition of the monarchy, open borders and the strengthening of transgender rights.
In her speech, Sultana foreshadowed forming a contemporary “rainbow coalition” of various groups within British society – including the working class, pensioners, the disabled, migrants, and transgender and gay people.
These disparate groups, however, do not comprise a unified voting block. Nor is it possible to transform such groups into a revolutionary political force – as other politicians, most notably Martin Luther King near the end of his life, Saul Alinsky and Jesse Jackson, have found to their utter and complete dismay.
Underlying the Your Party’s entire political project is an assumption that the working class constitutes a revolutionary political agent. That assumption – central to Marx’s philosophy but long since disproved by history – is demonstrably false, and no intelligent politician could possibly believe otherwise.
Sultana and Corbyn would be well advised to read Marx’s critique of those he termed “utopian socialists” – in which he points out that well entrenched ruling classes never give up their dominance as a result of fanciful revolutionary schemes, and that what he termed the “lumpen proletariat” would, given the opportunity, always side with the forces of reaction, rather than the forces of revolution.
Other aspects of Sultana’s program also highlight her essential irrationality.
How can anyone believe that the state of Israel is likely to be abolished and replaced by a unified Palestinian state? Yet when Corbyn demurred to such nonsense at the conference, he was denounced by Sultana’s supporters for “being soft on Zionism.” This must have come as a shock to Corbyn – who has been a consistent critic of Israel for decades, and who was expelled from the Labour party for his alleged anti-Semitism.
When Michael Foot lost the 1983 election to Margaret Thatcher, his socialist program – one that Corbyn endorsed – was described by Foot’s critics as “the longest political suicide note in British political history.” Compared to Sultana’s political program, Foot’s appears to be a model of rationality and common sense.
The structure that Sultana has imposed on the party is also is irretrievably utopian, unworkable and certain to render the party (should it long survive the Liverpool conference) completely ineffective.
How can you have a modern political party that does not have a leader – and surely no political party can be effectively governed by a committee. The absurd party name – Your Party – speaks for itself.
All of these problems are simply a reflection of the fact that Corbynite socialism and progressive leftism are no longer viable political ideologies in the West.
Progressive leftism is, of course, a more irrational, but also a more popular ideology at present, which explains why Sultana so easily prevailed over Corbyn at the recent conference.
It also explains why Corbyn sought Sultana’s assistance in establishing Your Party in the first place – even he knew that a recycled version of Michael Foot’s socialist agenda could not serve as a viable political program in contemporary Britain.
Even so, Corbyn must surely be regretting tying himself to the cartwheels of Sultana’s frankly irrational and absurd political program.
Corbyn and Sultana are like two passengers on a sinking ship that have fallen overboard. They clutch at each other in sheer desperation, but each is so focused on saving themselves that they drag each other down to their collective death. They both refuse to accept that the current political trajectory in the West rests with mainstream social democratic parties committed to maintaining the globalist economic and ideological status quo and, alternatively, the rapidly growing right-wing populist parties that are now, having recently supplanted traditional conservative parties, their main political opponents.
If a third alternative is to emerge within this framework, it can only be one that rejects both Corbynite socialism and Sultana’s irrational progressive leftist extremism.
At the recent Your Party conference in Liverpool, both of these ideologies revealed themselves to be nothing more than intertwined absurdities, and it is now time for them to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
