Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana have jumped. They are now launching a new party.
Whether any other MPs join this group is as yet unknown, but the man on whom many pinned their hopes in two general elections now has a new election vehicle and a young heir apparent who is capable of appealing to many.
As was seen in a recent LBC opinion poll, this new party will likely attract some immediate public support because Labour is so diabolical, the Greens are at present politically disorganised and in a state of flux in England and Wales, and a large number of people on the left of politics in those two countries feel that they have literally no one who can represent them anywhere in the political spectrum.
My hope is, of course, that this party will add a new dimension to political debate. We most definitely need that, and I will watch with interest how this develops.
Does that, however, mean that I think it will deliver major political change? That is an entirely different question, and as I have said before, I have seen other political parties come and go over the last 50 or more years during which I have observed politics. I can be no more confident that this upstart will be more successful than almost all the others that I have seen, most of which are nothing but memories now. The fact is that within our two-party system, breaking the mould is incredibly difficult.
That said, we must remember that, in recent years, Reform appears to have achieved this goal. Of course, given the fiascos that we are now seeing from that party, both within Parliament and in the councils it is running, its fortunes may not last, especially as for many people keeping Reform out of power is their top political priority.
Whatever people might tell opinion pollsters, and whatever they might believe, when election day comes, I think that there will be many who will vote tactically to achieve the goal of keeping the far right out of power, unless we get proportional representation in the meantime, and I fear that will not be the case. Weighting for this factor is very difficult.
That said, I am not suggesting that Curbyn and Sultana are making a mistake when creating this initiative. I know that Labour needs to be challenged from the left, and it is welcome that they are.
What worries me is that unless Labour collapses as completely as it is likely that the Tories will by 2029, the risk is that Farage might, single-handedly, be elected into office based on a split vote within the first-past-the-post system, however incompetent those around him might be, and then we might face the most significant democratic breakdown that the UK has ever seen.
Labour could, of course, prevent this. They could create proportional representation. They could also become a credible party of the left again. Those options are available to them. Many would welcome it if that were the case and if Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn were welcomed back into the Labour fold.
If Labour doesn't do that, which is most likely, and instead pave the way for fascism, as appears to be their intent, we are in deep trouble, and there will be much to observe, think about, comment upon, and then agonise over during the course of the next few years. I am not sure that much of that will be fun, but I will do it, nonetheless.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think this is the right time for the Greens to be a little disorganised. They’ve made council gains three months ago and going through a leadership election in which I hope Zack Polanski of Hypnoboob (™) fame will prevail
Let’s look on the bright side. It’s going to push issues like inequality and corporate power further up the political agenda. Therein lies opportunity. Grab it!
Whilst a new party that wants more fair play in who benefits from the economy is to be welcomed there’s not a lot to get too excited about unless Your Party understands Modern Money Teaching.
It feels like ashes in my mouth as I write this but I fear the success of the new party – or any new party – is critically dependent on two factors: whether they can raise very serious amounts of money and whether they can raise very serious amounts of media support. I’m not very optimistic on either count, as far as Corbyn is concerned, although in general terms I welcome the arrival of the new party.
The other factor being the ability of the uber rich owned media/social media to demonise any threat to their existing order. In the eyes of many, Corbyn is already a spent force due to the sheer amount of demonisation he received after coming close to defeating May in the 2017 election. That, coupled with the amount of assistance Reform UK seems to be receiving from the likes of Musk and all other financially influential interested parties. It’s a tall order indeed.
I’d need to see what ideas underpin this move. Already Corbyn is talking about arms sales versus NHS etc., and has got me a bit worried. It’s a bit old hat and he has to realise that Reform voters probably like a good war. What he needs to focus on is what we focus on here – the lies about not having enough money for the NHS, pensions and much else.
Let me put it this way – if he started talking about MMT and the joys of tax, I’d join up straight away.
I fear he won’t.
I don’t think he ever got that.
Can’t you tell him?
It’s a while since we have spoken.
I remember 2017 and the genuine feeling I had of hope, when the Corbyn-led Labour party went from a big poll deficit to a hung parliament, that things could get better. Also, he engaged more people – has any other politician had thousands chanting their name at Glastonbury?
Sadly, it didn’t last. Corbyn wasn’t perfect and probably never had the skills to be a leader but he appears more genuine than many, many other politicians.
I do hope that this new party does drag politics more back to the left because it is needed. It also must offer positive message rather than the nasty, divisive negativity that is dominating at present. Not a rose-coloured glasses, unaware of reality message but something that is optimistic, hopeful, inclusive, caring, compassionate and so on.
Craig
Bad Typo: for ‘opinion posters’, I think you intended ‘opinion pollsters’.
I am very bad! Corrected.
Perhas I should use AI more 🙂
Heh. heh. Very good.
I like Corbyn as I think he is principled. But I think he is out of the Overton Window because he is too divisive, and there are less contentious leaders.
But that doesn’t mean he can’t serve other roles in the new party, nor does it prevent him from being PM.
Labour MP Clive Lewis has already said that he does not plan to leave Labour and join the new party.
Apparently there have been over 140,000 sign-up in the last 24 hours, which is more than the membership of both the Conservatives (131,000) and Lib Dems (90,000).
There are lots of left-leaning organisations that may affiliate themselves with the new party, and it will be interesting to see whether Trade Unions can continue to support a party that supports genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1948444382899958024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_affiliation_in_the_United_Kingdom
Now claiming just under 240,000
300,000+ now!
Richard! Could you please approach them and offer your services. We need your sound Economic expertise!
How do I approach them?
Whilst I generally agree with your assessment, I would just like to pick up on one particular point, and add another.
You have said “the risk is that Farage might, single-handedly, be elected into office based on a split vote within the first-past-the-post system”. This is an attack line the MSM are already using, and Labour will too. it is a risk.
I would add that with the political landscape so rotten, there comes a time when you have to just put all your eggs in one basket, ignore the risks, and just go for it. I think this is such a time. They don’t come along often, but when they do, it is important to recognise them. No half measures this time – all or nothing.
Noted
200,000 sign-ups in 24 hours. Union support.
Corbyn-Sultana party sees 200,000 sign-ups in 24 hours | The National https://share.google/K4O8l4c2DKFLdxaQh
We need your still, calm voice of reason in these troubling times.
And we also need your strident calling out of the stupidities that pass for economic and political analysis in the mainstream media.
Thanks
” I know that Labour needs to be challenged from the left, and it is welcome that they are.”
You did a blog on the “House of the People”. What they came out with was anything but left wing – it was “Radically Normal” stuff.
Much of what you reported could form the basis of a manifesto from the new party. It would work since by definition the output of the House of the people event reflected what most UK citizens want.
I think we need to keep reminding ourselves that Corbyn would have fitted in quite well to the conservative party of 1963 (in terms of the relationship gov’ vs industry and gov &provision of public services).
Accepted.
I have inadvertently shifted the Overton window.
This blog has certainly shifted my expectations of the technical side of money supply management and any politician who wants my vote needs to realise that if they are going to lie to me, they ain’t getting it.
Some analysis of the new launch:
“No fear or favours: how Corbyn and Sultana’s party could blow up British politics”, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/no-fear-or-favours-how-corbyn-and-sultanas-party-could-blow-up-british-politics
“Former UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn launching new left-wing party”, Al Jazeera
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/24/former-uk-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-launching-new-left-wing-party
“New Corbyn-Sultana party sees 200,000 sign-ups in 24 hours”, The National
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25340357.corbyn-sultana-party-sees-200-000-sign-ups-24-hours/
Thanks
I think Reform has to be seen as the latest iteration of the Nigel Farage party which started in 1997 when he ousted the fairly liberal Alan Sked as leader of UKIP, in which case it’s taken around 28 years to get to where they are now. The Labour party took 24 years to get a short-lived minority government. The Green party could be said to have become a political party rather than a protest group in 1990 and are nowhere near power. As you say others have come and gone with no more than a few headlines and the odd MP.
If (and it’s a big if) the Corbyn-Sultana party becomes a serious political force then it would not be unreasonable to estimate it to take 20-ish years before it was strong enough to win power, which means we’re probably looking at around 2050 for a Sultana government. Of course politics can, and does, throw up surprises but I don’t think I’ll be holding my breath waiting for that one.
Much to agree with, and I was impressed with Corbyn’s press release yesterday.
We need a powerful counterpoint to Labour and their Reform cosplay – especially with Jonathan Reynolds yesterday saying that people have ‘legitimate concerns’ regarding protests against migrant accommodation (perhaps Jonathan Reynolds needs to reflect on how that looks to the ‘foreigners’ when he is next dancing around doing a ‘wonderful’ and ‘world beating’ trade deal!).
My concern is one that is highlighted by Adam Ramsay (former OpenDemocracy editor), in his substack post below, that a new left party – can it shed it’s Labourist roots – constitutional change is substituted for ‘socialism in Westminster’.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-168371249
However, we desperately need Corbyn to challenge Reform lite Labour and unsettle McSweeney.
Please send them a copy of your Taxing Wealth Report and then put yourself forward as the Chancellor.
I welcome this development. I have no idea whether it will succeed but it is certainly needed. Whilst history is not on the side of new breakaway parties I will be interested to see if, this time, history is an unreliable friend. When the Gang of Four broke away from Labour in 1981 Labour were in opposition and Thatcher in her early years as PM. This time Labour is in government with a substantial Parliamentary majority but on a remarkably thin base. Whatever view one may have of Corbyn, he did much better in 2017 than most had predicted and, in 2019 he won more votes than Starmer did in 2024. The 2019 election is often held against Corbyn but it was by any means a very odd election with a populist media personality and serial liar playing the Get Brexit Done card. Starmer was also a member of Corbyn’s team so he cannot escape blame. Now Starmer is leader, dragging the party ever rightward with an authoritarian zeal, massively out of step with many voters over Gaza, unable or unwilling to tackle the consequences of Brexit (and adopting a position at odds with his stated views beforehand) and clamping down on peaceful protest. These may all be differences without distinction but, I suspect, they may not. Time will tell, but if LINO do not see this development as a warning then Starmer may well go down in history as the man who squandered one of the biggest majorities in Parliamentary history simply to placate the vested interests intent on perpetuating the failed neoliberal ideology. As the Chinese curse goes “may you live in interesting times”.
You ignore the possibility/ probability that Starmer was supported and manoeuvred into the Labour Party leadership explicitly to destroy the party. He is most certainly a security services man who have spent years seeing the left and environmentalists as the enemy, with surveillance and infiltration of their organisations. Meantime the far right and their proclivity for violence is largely ignored.
Might it be that the current major political parties are pro-rentier and the Corbyn/Sultana party, so far, is rentier neutral or anti-rentier?
You are right.
The question of PR going forward is an important one.
There are two undeniable facts about British politics right now.
One, it is fragmented. Both the Left and Right of politics are split.
However, I would argue that under FPTP, the Right is likely to be more cohesive in coming together.
Farage may well say that he dislikes the Tories and wants to replace them, but remember, in the “get Brexit done” election, he said that he would never stand down candidates for the Tories. Yet, that is exactly what he did to guarantee victory for Johnson.
The Tories and Reform are opportunists and populists. They will do whatever to take and retain power. If that means they work together — they will if it meets their ends.
The “progressive” Left have no cohesion towards working with each other, at least not on a national level. And some on the Left have clearly taken the Neoliberal blue pill. It is difficult to see how Starmer and his clique, could ever work with Corbyn, and vice versa.
The second fact is, to get PR, someone needs to get power by FPTP, and change the system. Alternatively, in a hung parliament, PR has to be on the agenda of change.
Is the Left cohesive enough to do this? I’m afraid I don’t think so.
The Left is more likely to spend years in the wilderness arguing amongst itself, with many still under the illusion that eventually the working class will become class-conscious and overthrow those nasty capitalists. Others have given up on ideology, thinking that somehow accommodating Neoliberalism can be made to work.
Is there a middle ground where they could both meet? I doubt it.
Also, is the Corbyn party going to be in favour of PR? Of course, no one knows at this stage. If it doesn’t, then Corbyn becomes as big an enabler of the fascist right as Starmer if he splits the vote.
I can’t see any way that a Corbyn party will get enough of the vote to win under FPTP. They will not be treated the same way as poster boy, man of the people Farage is by the media. The right wing media will make sure of that.
I noted a news item on the day it was announced, the headline was “Corbyn’s hard-left party”.
Here’s one example — of course it is from the Telegraph, but get used to this, because the hatchet job has only just begun.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/24/corbyn-launches-hard-left-party-to-challenge-starmer/
The hatchet job has worked in the past, why wouldn’t it in the future?
I think it is interesting that Clive Lewis, who on the face of it would be a good fit for the new party, is resolutely still committed to the PLP. Likewise Chris Hinchliff, who despite his treatment by a “private schoolboy drinking club”, is still loyal https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/25/its-all-a-game-to-some-politicians-says-former-labour-mp-suspended-for-planning-rebellion
Clive Lewis is an outlier in Labour, but has a core team he is not going to dump unless they decide for him. I dont expect many current MPs will join, simply because most lefties have been rid of, mostly by cheating (e.g. Russell Moyle) and replaced by rightvwing landlords and party hacks. The MP joiners will be non white, female, or current Independents, or indeed all three.
“Under the Party Chair’s Report there appeared to be a lack of urgency in addressing falling membership and disengagement. A detailed question was asked, and not addressed, about the National Policy Forum (NPF) process being unfit for purpose. Jess asked, in the absence of membership numbers, about any key indicators that could be shared about recruitment and retention of members, so that the NEC can fulfil its obligations. It was noted that membership numbers will be shared in the annual report, but the question was otherwise ignored.”
From the NEC on 22nd July.
Labour party don’t want us to know how many members they have. Can’t think why not.
The Labour Party has been unconcerned about falling membership numbers ever since the Blair years. He was keen to hobble the grass roots party activists, and started the gradual decline of local labour constituency parties. His influence is still strong within the current party structure, and it’s clear, they don’t care how many members they have, as long as they have the backing of the wealthy lobbyists.
I welcome the new party, and have signed up. We need a voice on the left, and this will help.
If I could just add one other thing, a lot of people talking about Corbyn but Zarah Sultana is in there, hopefully to take the lead. She is very capable, sharp and forthright. She will make many things possible, that weren’t before.
PR would be a disaster if implemented now. Reform is polling better than Conservatives and almost every other party, under PR they could be the biggest party, remember they got 14.9% of the total vote share in 2024 and they are more popular now. The Liberal Democrats, as much as I like Ed Davey’s questions and some of his policies, have done incredible amounts of harm to the left vote by splitting it and the Corbyn/Sultana party will only fracture it more.
The left and centre left will have:
Labour (some will still vote for them even if you think they’re LINO and centre right now),
Greens,
Liberal Democrats
Unnamed Corbyn-Sultana party
The right and centre right will have:
Conservatives
Reform
I know many will look at the list and think “No labour are centre right” and “LibDems are centrist or slightly left” etc but most people voting Conservative or Reform will see everyone else as left or centre left. Many people still consider Labour centre left, despite every Labour government since Margaret Thatcher being centre right, I don’t agree with them but it’s still what many people think of.
Don’t think of me as someone who is against them, I want Corbyn’s policies minus the nuclear deterrent removal, but I am also a strategist and it’s most likely they will only lead to Reform winning. I WILL HAPPILY BE WRONG ON THIS!
Do you know how PR works?
Sorry to ask, but I can’t see any logic in your comment.
Depends what form of PR we are going for as there is no singular version of PR. At it’s core the idea is to represent the voting wishes of the population properly but you will have a different outcome between complete PR (31% of votes = 31% of seats) and a transferable vote type systems which can be done at the seat level or at a national level etc.
As for why this matters. Under strict PR if Green get 11% of the votes, Unnamed Party get 13% of votes, Lib Dems get 19% of votes and Labour get 15% of votes, the “left” get 58% of all votes however if Reform gets 31% and Conservatives get 11% Reform can form a government and get first choice to do so having the highest vote share. Assuming we simply swap out the system of gaining seats.
This is already far too much power for Reform because remember, not everything needs to be held to a vote in parliament and we all remember the last coalition government too, Reform-LibDems would get exactly 50% of seats. The Greens have already said they are not whipping MPs so that’s 11% voting however they want. If Reform have an incredibly destructive policy that acts in some of the Green MPs best interest and those in the constituency? They could vote for or simply abstain, letting it sail by, and we have already seen the House of Lords and King provide no barrier to a bill even when the supreme court deems it illegal.
Don’t get me wrong, I dislike the first past the post system intensely but PR in its absolute form would be a Reform government as things are now and we have woefully poor checks and balances on the power of the government even after Tony Blair handed some of it over to the Supreme Court. I want PR but I want PR with mechanisms for preventing a government going off the rails like we see in the US right now.
But you can’t form a government if no-one supports you, evehn with 31% of the seats. You do not have the support of the House.
And as a democrat, I support the right of people to vote Reform, much as I wish they would not.
Surely if we are in favour of PR, it’s because it’s the fairest system not because it’s the one designed to give us the result we want. Evidence from around the world doesn’t suggest it guarantees more stable government only more representative.
I support democracy
Like many people I fear that what will motivate me most at the next election is avoiding a Reform MP in my constituency and a Reform government of the country. I can imagine fewer greater catastrophes than Nigel Farage as PM. It looks as if we will again be in the unfortunate position in 2029 of voting against a party rather than for something we believe in. Still, call me a foolish optimist, but at the moment I feel that the Labour party is not a forlorn hope. I believe this, not because of the policies of the current cabinet, some of which in my view verge on the bizarrely counter productive, but because of the PLP and the new intake of MPs who seem to be showing a disinclination to serve merely as lobby fodder. Keir Starmer likes to characterise himself as pragmatic and has clearly reconciled himself to fixing a peg on his nose in order to deal with Donald Trump. I therefore see no reason why he should not be prepared to accommodate himself in a similar way to his own backbenchers. It would be the pragmatic thing to do. There are rumours of a cabinet reshuffle by the autumn and that should give us an indication as to whether Starmer will isten to his MPs or not. If not Andy Burnham has raised his head above the parapet to advocate both PR and a concentration on providing decent housing. So I am refusing to write the Labour party off. I still think it could be our best defence against fascism. NB Can things have got so bad that Corbyn’s new party is to be called “The National.”?
I wish I could see any light in your hope.
I’ve often thought that it should have the name socialist in the title. However many people would think that too hard left.
I like the name of one of the groups that is growing quite well, the Peace and Justice Project.
Nobody that we don’t want to join would join The Peace and Justice Party.
I have to admit I follow the Peace and Justice support group, as well as Corbyn’s Peace and Justice Project.
Socialist would be a massive mistake.
I could not vote for a party supporting materialism above all else.
That’s what I mean about people thinking socialism is too far left. Are you getting mixed up with socialism and Marxism?
As far as I’m concerned socialism means caring and sharing.
You are wrong, then.
Soclialism as defined by Labour was fundamentally a materiliast concept.
Your definition is of social democracy.
We tend to forget that at the turn of the 20th century, the Labour party was in a similar position to Corbyn/Sultana, and the Liberals were the ‘Labour party’ of the time. It’s a rough approximation admittedly.
Once the Labour movement funded the Party they got a head of steam and replaced the Liberals.
It’s not impossible that within a decade, Reform and Corbyn/Sultana could replace the Tories and Labour.
yes but the electorate tripled in 1918 with a third of the men, mostly the poorer section of the population, and women getting the vote .
and the Liberals did a good job of splitting themselves between Asquith and Lloyd George.
The war time coalition lasted until 1922 when the Tories pulled out (hence the 1922 committee ) The rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia frightened many middle class into switching to the right.
We are living in ‘interesting times’. It could go in several ways.
And now we’re getting 16/17 year olds added to the register who are more left wing. If Starmer keeps on with his ways, then a lot more MPs will be excluded/leave, especially if the new party takes off.
As you say, interesting times.
The Collective movement have announced that the proposed new Corbyn-Sultana party has received 250,000 sign-ups in their first 24 hours, making it the second largest would-be party in the UK.
Source: https://x.com/wearecollectiv_/status/1948723652024819815
Thanks Robertj – as Richard says, ‘much to agree with’!
Impressed by Corbyn’s press release, I too have signed up & donated and will follow developments with interest.
However, I don’t think that means I have ‘joined’ a party (and cetainly not that I would necessarily vote for them) and in any case if ever I were to join a political party (which I have never done), it would have to be in France where I have lived for the last 40 years. But I do care deeply about the alarming state of my country of origin and felt the need to do something to give this new group a chance – however small – to somehow propitiate real change. We shall see.
Hopefully I will live to use my recently re-aquired right (thanks to the Tories!) to vote in the next UK election. As the (Labour) MP in my UK constituency, with whom I have had encouraging email exchanges, is one of the Labour rebels and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, I wait with growing interest to see what she will do given her large majority at the last election in a historically ‘solid’ Labour seat (where, as a former Labour voter, I chose to vote Green in protest – will such a thing a ‘solid Labour seat’ still exist by the next election?).
Beyond that, it would not feel appropriate for me as a non-resident to particiate actively in forming policy for a UK party. On the other hand, I did pay tax in the UK for half my working life and about half my pension comes from the UK, so I do have a small personal interest.
I’ve joined and donated.
I will lobby them about MMT. I hope others will do the same.
Some reminders:
Corbyn as Labour leader got membership to 600,000 and the members’ donations made the party richer than it had been for years and free from corporate and donor blackmail.
He remains one of the most trusted people in politics even AFTER all the smears and lies.
He raised over £300k (very quickly) in legal funds when being sued by John Waight.
He is a social democrat according to his policies in 2017.
His policies were and are popular.
Labour are in a horrible place now. Did you read this latest bit of Reeves lunacy?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/25/reeves-retrospective-legislation-potential-supreme-court-ruling-44bn-car-finance-scandal
She wants to defend the bankers! Again! Good luck with that on the doorstep Rachel!
Zara Sultana has a solid support base from many currently alienated from politics by age and/or ethnicity. She is a lady with talent, guts and determination.
Labour CAN be beaten and HAVE been beaten, not just by Reform UK Ltd, but by progressive Independents and by Greens.
This new party claims to be grass roots based. We will see but the only way to find out is to become a grass seed!
I’m not naive. I joined Labour. I joined Momentum. I left them both later on and am glad I did. Ive been disappointed before. I could so easily get cynical. But this is big, and stuff is happening. The big battles have to be fought again and again and again.
But it will be easy to underestimate this new group, and even easier to underestimate the collapse of politics as we know it, and I include the kleptokorporate klowns of Fa***e’s latest “company posing as a party” in that statement. Reform made a tactical error winning those 12 councils. May 2026 will be difficult for them because for the first time ever they will have to defend their record in office.
My 3 priorities for this new party will be:
Are they ready to work with others and form electoral coalitions?
Are they committed to PR?
Are they committed to truthful statements about money?
Because if not, nothing will change.
Much to agree with
Reposting because I seem to have put it in the wrong place (always tricky when responding to a reply):
Thanks Robertj – as Richard says, ‘much to agree with’!
Impressed by Corbyn’s press release, I too have signed up & donated and will follow developments with interest.
However, I don’t think that means I have ‘joined’ a party (and cetainly not that I would necessarily vote for them) and in any case if ever I were to join a political party (which I have never done), it would have to be in France where I have lived for the last 40 years. But I do care deeply about the alarming state of my country of origin and felt the need to do something to give this new group a chance – however small – to somehow propitiate real change. We shall see.
Hopefully I will live to use my recently re-aquired right (thanks to the Tories!) to vote in the next UK election. As the (Labour) MP in my UK constituency, with whom I have had encouraging email exchanges, is one of the Labour rebels and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, I wait with growing interest to see what she will do given her large majority at the last election in a historically ‘solid’ Labour seat (where, as a former Labour voter, I chose to vote Green in protest – will such a thing a ‘solid Labour seat’ still exist by the next election?).
Beyond that, it would not feel appropriate for me as a non-resident to particiate actively in forming policy for a UK party. On the other hand, I did pay tax in the UK for half my working life and about half my pension comes from the UK, so I do have a small personal interest.
Starmer will never let Corbyn back in (can’t recall who wished that) because his whole power grab was based on McSweeney’s “Kill Corbyn. Change the rules so no one on the Left can run for leader. Hug the Flag”. To kill Corbyn, Starmer reached for the only tool available – antisemitism. From 2014, political groups from Jewish communities attacked Corbyn for his pro-Palestine stance; Starmer used that, whilst ignoring his own commissioned Forde Report. So having trashed Corbyn to get power, Starmer will never, ever retreat because he can’t. Hence, I believe, his refusal to recognise Palestine.
Since Starmer took over, Labour has been haemorrhaging members. From over 500,000 in 2018/2019, Party membership has reduced by about 210,000. Labour won’t release current figures. (Is that legal?). The Labour Party is now in debt. However, the new Party already has over 240,000 sign ups, and it’s only been going for 48 hours.
Labour won the last election by not being the Tories. Many millions voted tactically, and 5 Independents were elected. The preceding rhetoric was “Even if you have reservations about Starmer, if you don’t vote Labour, you’re a Tory enabler”. How’s that going?
Must our General Elections now be decided by the contemptible Reform?? Do we have no choice but to vote for a Party we despise slightly less than another?? Will we be forced, yet again, to vote against all our principles and instincts simply so something worse doesn’t slouch towards No 10 to be born??
It’s no wonder that people have disengaged. I would if I could. My own values won’t let me; so I’ll probably die prematurely of stress in some bleak, chilly hospital ward staffed by AI.
Corbyn offers hope; like he did before. In a strange way, it almost doesn’t matter how many seats his Party gets in 2029; just by offering more than fear and loathing, he touches something in our humanity.
There is an answer.
Starmer must go.
I think that increasingly likely.
Richard,
If you think Starmer will go how do you envision that happening and who might replace him?
Every time I think about this I cannot think of a feasible answer. The only person in the current cabinet whose policies would be likely to make a difference would be Angela Rayner and she has recently ruled herself out. I also think she would face a big challenge in winning over a snobbish and prejudiced electorate with her educational background and northern vowels, although I think she is probably the most able politician in the current cabinet. One other person I would like to see lead labour is Andy Burnham but the drawback there is obvious. He has no seat in the HOC. So how is this feat of ditching Starmer to be done, given he has a very large majority and has only been in office for a year?
I am reduced to hoping That Starmer will read the runes, conclude the PLP may well become ungovernable if he does not change tack and ditch both McSweeney AND Rachel Reeves.
You are right: the slate is bare.
I joined the Labour Party to oppose Jeremy Corbyn because I didn’t believe he could lead them into gov. I admired the man and his principles, but thought him unelectable as a PM. I then supported Starmer in the leadership election on the strength of his (false) promises. I’ve now decided to give my support to this new party because I believe their policies, when they emerge will be more socialist than the Labour Party, which I left in January, totally disillusioned with the lot of them.
I don’t see Corbyn getting anywhere near power, but he may act as a catalyst to younger MPs and people in general, to do something(or ‘give a shit’ as I like to call it.
There’s nothing to lose in my opinion because I don’t think Reform can remain credible for any length of time. Reform will be lauded by the right -wing media, but people are not all fools and will not be conned by Farage again.
Brave to admit that.
I think it’s brave too.
How strange. You joined the party to oppose someone you actually like. Just shows how he lives rent free in your head. 300000 joined the party because they agreed with what he stood for.
I note you don’t say when you joined the party.
I’d been a member for decades and left when Blair started the Iraq war. I rejoined because of Corbyn, not despite him. I didn’t vote for Starmer or Rayner.
I liked Corbyn and also the Labour policies at the time I joined ( around 2015), but I thought he was an obstacle to Labour achieving power. What I couldn’t know at that time or couldn’t see was that Starmer was insincere and had a totally different agenda from the party. He(Starmer)was nobbled or a ‘ringer’- put in place to subvert the wishes of Conference-made policies. He won’t fool me again.
Re numbers for the new party. 250,000 signing up does not mean 250,000 members. People are signing up to go on a mailing list, as i have. That does not mean I will become a member. I also signed up for the Conservative Home newsletter! I also receive the ‘Greens in Exile’ newsletter.
I receive many Tufton Street newsletters – to see what they’re saying.
But this is still a phenomenal rate of sign up.
Let’s not deny it.
What I signed up for was “to be part of the founding process of this new party” and “to build a new kind of political party – one that belongs to you”.
That’s a bit more than signing up for a newsletter. Oh, and I also donated.
I know one thing that will definitely fail – the status quo.
The main danger with new party is that “it will be totally dominated by a single organisational and ideological tendency: ex-Labourites rallied behind an ex-Labour leader…”
https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/finally-after-10-monthscorbynwith
Why do you always forget to say that you wrote this article?
This only serves to benefit Reform further. The Left’s persistent inability to collaborate or compromise—often justified by a sense of moral superiority—continues to fracture its effectiveness, ultimately paving the way for a populist right-wing victory. Frankly, I’m growing weary of the constant infighting on the Left: the endless purity tests, the fixation on idealistic positions that are detached from political reality, and the prioritisation of winning arguments over achieving tangible progress.
It doesn’t matter if your position is morally righteous if the outcome is ceding power to extremists. In that scenario, even a weak Labour government would be preferable to what we’d be facing.
The Left must unite, compromise where needed, and focus on pragmatic, actionable solutions. The populist far right is far too competent at exploiting division, and unless we start dealing with the world as it is—not as we wish it to be—we are sleepwalking into a political disaster.
Oh come on, there is no party on the left, bar maybe the Greens, right now. Labour and the LibDems are not, and Mhairi Balck quit the SNP yesterday because it is so right wing.
You forgot to include YOUR suggestion as to a way forward.
That’s what Collective does.
At the last election in a group of constituencies the left parties got together and decided which one of them would stand the best chance of winning against labour, tory and reform. That’s why there are independents and more green party MPs now.
Majority does the same in the north east. By the way, it’s called Majority because that’s the name chosen by the majority of its supporters. Sounds like an idea to me.
The vote-splitting concerns can be dealt with by deliberately not standing in around 150 seats that would be the difference between Reform UK gaining power or not.
If a new party can say “It is safe to support us and vote for us everywhere we will stand candidates.” then their chances of gaining enough support to actually win seats and become a serious player is vastly increased.
They can stop Reform and prevent all future Labour majorities by employing such an electoral strategy.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ewanhoyle/p/a-new-left-party-can-design-an-electoral?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2u1072
The vote-splitting concerns can be dealt with by deliberately not standing in around 150 seats that would be the difference between Reform UK gaining power or not.
If a new party can say “It is safe to support us and vote for us everywhere we will stand candidates.” then their chances of gaining enough support to actually win seats and become a serious player is vastly increased.
They can stop Reform and prevent all future Labour majorities by employing such an electoral strategy.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ewanhoyle/p/a-new-left-party-can-design-an-electoral?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2u1072
Interesting idea
I suppose if enough expelled members of Green Party (I am in that category) plus suspended members of which there are many from the current witch-hunt, joined Corbyn’s new party maybe, just maybe, they could help to make it give a greater priority to the climate change danger?
Here in France, that sort of approach has been used effectively in the past to keep out the National Front.
The last time was different, with 4 parties broadly on the left (hard left, communist, centre-left & ecology/green) formed an alliance with a common manifesto, sharing out the seats based of previous votes, with one candidate standing in each). That was effective for the election but not enough to persuade Macron to name one of them as PM, and now they are squabbling.
Re a previous comment by Richard, it may be worth noting that France still has a distinct socialist party (PS) – in power under Mitterand, which I see as essentially social democrat and not, as I understand the term, materialist. Clearly ‘socialist’ has many definitions, varying over time & place.
France also still has a small (non-Stalinist) Communist Party (PC), which now seems to be less ‘hard-left’ that Melanchon’s party). So all these descriptions are complicated. But I realise, that unlike in France, (socialism’ has acquired a bad name and is probably best avoided by the new party in the making.
Thanks
There is still a social democrat party here. I know some people who belong to it.
It was formed when the Gang of 4 split from the labour party in 1990. I was a member of the labour party then, and did not follow them.
They still stand candidates in some local elections.
My labour party membership card says that the labour party is a democratic socialist party, and that we live together freely in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Someone should remind Starmer of that.
The SDP here is now very far right.
While I’m delighted about the possibility of real socialism returning in the UK, I think we need to remain cautious about the new party until its policies and strategies become clearer. In particular, if you live in any of the devolved nations, will they support our case for independence or not? I suspect they’ll be equivocal about that: the UK establishment will do all it can to prevent secession. The nightmare scenario for those in support of independence will be a statement of support prior to an election, then a sharp reversal after the event i.e. a re-run of Cameron’s volte-face of the Vow to Scotland.
If you join from the start you can affect the policy. If you don’t, you can’t complain about it afterwards, can you? That’s the whole point of the new party.
Jen, England’s electorate outnumbers the Scottish electorate by approximately 10 to 1, so joining an English-based political party guarantees that the Scottish members’ opinions count for nothing, just as in Westminster where the SNP counts for nothing even if it were to hold 100% of the Scottish seats. With public opinion in Scotland currently sitting at circa 60% in favour of independence and rising, the arrival of yet another London-based party into Scottish politics will only impede progress towards the independence which the majority of Scots seek.
Ken, what makes you think it will be London based?
I live in County Durham, and London based doesn’t suit us either.
At the last election our MP lived and still lives in Oxford. Some of us knew that and we produced a leaflet telling people not to vote for him because he had no thought whatsoever for the area. His first meeting in the area before the election had a police escort for him and the rest of the electioneering nobody knew where he was going until a photo appeared of him next to a signpost.
He parachuted himself in along with other members of the NEC. Labour stalwarts still voted for him. Since being elected he has mentioned North Durham 19 times in debates. He has voted with the government on every vote but one.
The north east has a lot more in common with Scotland than with London.
Majority is at least a north east party so it would be interesting to see how many votes it would get.
I have often wondered why it is we can’t vote for the SNP in the north east.
Getting a new Labour leader is a 2 part process.
1 – the challenge. A vote to remove him (as leader of PLP) requires a letter with signatures of around 80 Labour MPs. Any Labour MP can do that if 80 others support them. They don’t even need to be aiming to replace him.
2 – the leadership election – needs MPs willing to stand who can get about 80 nominations. No left wing candidate can do that (by design) but others could. None of them look likely to significantly change direction from Starmer, except cosmetically, doing the minimum possible to reduce public outrage about Gaza and sewage in the rivers, and of course potholes!
Also, now that the “unprecedented” is a daily occurrence in politics, he could find himself losing a full scale parliamentary vote of confidence (say, over Gaza or recognising Palestine), in which case he’s got to announce his resignation, while parliament & the King decide how to get a new PM, either by a GE, or by a new PLP leader winning a vote of confidence in the Commons.
Or he could decide he needs more time with his family and go of his own accord.
Getting Starmer out is perfectly possible and he deserves to go (to the Hague?).
Replacing him is quite easy too.
But changing the direction of the government needs serious change in a LOT of MPs and I don’t see that happening.
It feels like a “switch it off and switch it on again” exercise. The gov’t gets rebooted but nothing really changes.
Much to agree with
In terms of the Left never being able to resolve its ideological differences, my dear departed brother in law used to describe it as “intellectual wank*ng”. I tend to agree.
In the recent past, the Tories’ main strength was to include MPs with a wide range of stances. They did not eject those with differing viewpoints; in contrast, Starmer has sidelined MPs who express even the slightest resistance, and has gone as far as removing the whip from some. That will, in the end, destroy his Party. Sadly, it’s posturing as “Labour”.
People and disparate groups with broadly similar political beliefs tend to set aside their differences and align in a cause when they have a visible “common enemy”. However, that “enemy” must present what they perceive in common as an immediate threat. For example, the USSR ruled over many differing countries which had histories of conflicts between them. Whilst under the thumb of the Soviet Union, the individual countries were fairly united in their opposition to its rule. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed, old enmities resurfaced – the Balkans being a prime example.
The problem now is that groups on the Left are only just waking up to the extent of the threat to society which is posed by Starmer, his inner circle and indeed Reform. Perhaps the most significant thing that Corbyn and Sultana have done is to open the door to a common cause.
Deleted at commentator request.
I am confident that Zarah and Jeremy’s new party could be an effective voice to counter the right/neoliberal parties.
They already look to be receiving a lot of support and union backing.
Local groups are already starting to get themselves organised and ready to take things forward. Many of whom gained useful campaigning experience under Corbyn’s Labour.
And the key thing here is that the Labour right will not be holding them back.
I am optimistic.
i sent them a few quid
Please can you remove the post with the Jamie Driscoll link on Facebook. It seems to be linking to 2023, not his support of Corbyn and Sultana.
It’s July 27th 12.41 am.
I genuinely do not know what is being asked of me. I haven’t posted about him on Facebook.
Sorry.
There is a link that I posted on this thread to a Jamie Driscoll Facebook page.
The link starts with a post of his in 2023.
I thought it was just to his message supporting Corbyn and Sultana.
I would like it if you could remove that post from me, please.
By the way, whenever I go on the link to manage my subscriptions I am directed to a post about a non-existent bank, HBOS, in 2007, which is weird.
I have done the best I can.
Its this one here,
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/07/25/of-corbyn-and-sultana-and-the-future-of-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-1033657
not one of yours but one of JenW’s with a bad link ?
Deleted now.
Thanks, Richard. I sometimes find it hard to believe that I started using computers with a Sinclair ZX80 and I still don’t know what to do.
Perhaps I shouldn’t go online after midnight when I’ve had a couple of glasses of wine.
🙂
I, too, had a ZX80