Chaos and Infighting: Corbyn’s 'Your Party' Flounders at Launch

Paul Riverbank, 12/1/2025Corbyn’s “Your Party” launches in disarray, hindered by infighting, vague policies, and Green Party gains.

Beneath banners and speeches, simple matters caused headaches: the name, for instance, remains stubbornly placeholder. Perhaps it was meant to project a sense of inclusivity—after all, “Your Party” could, in theory, belong to anyone. Jeremy Corbyn tried to sell it as a virtue, declaring, “We have a party, we have a constitution, enthusiasm, and principles. And, above all, we have a name.” Yet, to a significant slice of observers, that seemed more an admission of uncertainty than a rallying cry.

The seams of division were not hard to spot. Announced as a co-leader alongside Corbyn, Zarah Sultana conspicuously stayed away, only communicating her frustrations over internal disputes and the removal of several members for their associations with other left groups. Her absence was a pointed gesture, hinting at festering discord inside the party’s supposed big tent.

When the decision to permit members belonging to multiple political organisations squeaked through, it was viewed as a victory for Sultana’s side, but the broader clashes hardly ebbed. Geraldine McKelvie, reporting from the scene, offered a biting summary: “If British left politics carries a reputation for splintering, Your Party seems to have perfected the trait early.” She wasn’t exaggerating. At one juncture, six MPs mingled among four different internal groups, each forming and fracturing alliances by the hour. Most worrisome, perhaps, was the lack of logistical clarity—no schedule distributed in time, no clear sense of when or how key debates would be staged. For a party seeking to demonstrate organization and coherence, this was self-sabotage.

Support among early backers, never especially deep, drained fast. MPs Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed, both elected on platforms centered around Gaza and both initially enthusiastic, soon detached themselves. The environment, they argued, felt exclusionary and toxic, at odds with the progressive image pitched to the public. Their attempts to bridge the gap between more conservative community priorities and the stance of younger, socially progressive activists proved thankless.

The organisers did try to set themselves apart, drawing delegates via lottery rather than traditional local branches. But decision-making fell to a tightly knit group focused on Corbyn’s long-standing base. Instead of selecting a single leader in the open, Your Party went for a “collective” arrangement, temporarily skirting direct contests for authority. Yet voters used to the familiar machinery of mainstream parties might find this unconventional structure more alienating than refreshing.

Perhaps the only area with any visibility—its stance on Gaza—also narrowed its appeal. Many members have pushed for an open, member-driven approach on all policies, but as the next election looms, the wider electorate will expect more tangible propositions. As McKelvie pointed out, beyond Gaza there’s a policy vacuum, and people are starting to notice.

Meanwhile, the Green Party, under the energetic leadership of Zack Polanski, is hustling to mop up the left-of-Labour demographic. New members have flowed in, swelling Green ranks beyond those of the Conservatives—an unprecedented feat. With millions in fresh fundraising, the Greens are positioning themselves as both bolder and better organised than their more chaotic rivals. Some who flirted with Your Party are, as McKelvie put it succinctly, “already going green.”

The general British public is not blind to the fragmentation on the left. The chasm could easily prove fatal; if Your Party is perceived as out-of-step—on NATO, for instance, where public support for withdrawal is vanishingly low—then lost Labour voters might prefer the Liberal Democrats or even a revitalized Green Party as havens for protest votes. Starmer's Labour may seem staid, but next to a party uncertain even of its own name, caution is comfort.

Looking ahead, Your Party faces a hard climb. Contesting elections as early as 2026—across Scotland, Wales, and English councils—without settled identity or policy is perilous. Other fledgling outfits, like Reform UK, have shown how swiftly rapid gains can give way to discord and drift.

What does this all amount to? On the ground in Liverpool, delegates were eager but mostly unclear about what their new party believed or when its debates would happen. The hope is still palpable, if somewhat frayed, but hope alone has not yet built a functioning political vehicle.

If Your Party wants to last, it will need to turn enthusiasm into discipline, name recognition into substance, and principles into practicable policies. Right now, it stands as a vivid lesson in just how hard new beginnings can be, especially when they start off in a fog of their own making.

Anyone glancing at the left-leaning flank of British politics may have heard whispers about “Your Party”—or more accurately, seen the confusion swirling around it. Their debut conference, meant to present firm ideals and fresh organization, instead revealed a group more tangled than unified. Walking into the Liverpool venue, the sense that this was a new venture, teeming with energy but lacking unity, was unmistakable.Beneath banners and speeches, simple matters caused headaches: the name, for instance, remains stubbornly placeholder. Perhaps it was meant to project a sense of inclusivity—after all, “Your Party” could, in theory, belong to anyone. Jeremy Corbyn tried to sell it as a virtue, declaring, “We have a party, we have a constitution, enthusiasm, and principles. And, above all, we have a name.” Yet, to a significant slice of observers, that seemed more an admission of uncertainty than a rallying cry.The seams of division were not hard to spot. Announced as a co-leader alongside Corbyn, Zarah Sultana conspicuously stayed away, only communicating her frustrations over internal disputes and the removal of several members for their associations with other left groups. Her absence was a pointed gesture, hinting at festering discord inside the party’s supposed big tent.When the decision to permit members belonging to multiple political organisations squeaked through, it was viewed as a victory for Sultana’s side, but the broader clashes hardly ebbed. Geraldine McKelvie, reporting from the scene, offered a biting summary: “If British left politics carries a reputation for splintering, Your Party seems to have perfected the trait early.” She wasn’t exaggerating. At one juncture, six MPs mingled among four different internal groups, each forming and fracturing alliances by the hour. Most worrisome, perhaps, was the lack of logistical clarity—no schedule distributed in time, no clear sense of when or how key debates would be staged. For a party seeking to demonstrate organization and coherence, this was self-sabotage.Support among early backers, never especially deep, drained fast. MPs Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed, both elected on platforms centered around Gaza and both initially enthusiastic, soon detached themselves. The environment, they argued, felt exclusionary and toxic, at odds with the progressive image pitched to the public. Their attempts to bridge the gap between more conservative community priorities and the stance of younger, socially progressive activists proved thankless.The organisers did try to set themselves apart, drawing delegates via lottery rather than traditional local branches. But decision-making fell to a tightly knit group focused on Corbyn’s long-standing base. Instead of selecting a single leader in the open, Your Party went for a “collective” arrangement, temporarily skirting direct contests for authority. Yet voters used to the familiar machinery of mainstream parties might find this unconventional structure more alienating than refreshing.Perhaps the only area with any visibility—its stance on Gaza—also narrowed its appeal. Many members have pushed for an open, member-driven approach on all policies, but as the next election looms, the wider electorate will expect more tangible propositions. As McKelvie pointed out, beyond Gaza there’s a policy vacuum, and people are starting to notice.Meanwhile, the Green Party, under the energetic leadership of Zack Polanski, is hustling to mop up the left-of-Labour demographic. New members have flowed in, swelling Green ranks beyond those of the Conservatives—an unprecedented feat. With millions in fresh fundraising, the Greens are positioning themselves as both bolder and better organised than their more chaotic rivals. Some who flirted with Your Party are, as McKelvie put it succinctly, “already going green.”The general British public is not blind to the fragmentation on the left. The chasm could easily prove fatal; if Your Party is perceived as out-of-step—on NATO, for instance, where public support for withdrawal is vanishingly low—then lost Labour voters might prefer the Liberal Democrats or even a revitalized Green Party as havens for protest votes. Starmer's Labour may seem staid, but next to a party uncertain even of its own name, caution is comfort.Looking ahead, Your Party faces a hard climb. Contesting elections as early as 2026—across Scotland, Wales, and English councils—without settled identity or policy is perilous. Other fledgling outfits, like Reform UK, have shown how swiftly rapid gains can give way to discord and drift.What does this all amount to? On the ground in Liverpool, delegates were eager but mostly unclear about what their new party believed or when its debates would happen. The hope is still palpable, if somewhat frayed, but hope alone has not yet built a functioning political vehicle.If Your Party wants to last, it will need to turn enthusiasm into discipline, name recognition into substance, and principles into practicable policies. Right now, it stands as a vivid lesson in just how hard new beginnings can be, especially when they start off in a fog of their own making.