ASSEMBLE/DISSEMBLE: THE YOUR PARTY NORWICH ASSEMBLY 19/10/25 by Larry O’Hara 21/10/25
Below is my account of what transpired at the first ever official meeting of Your Party (hereafter YP) members. It looks at the prelude/organisation of the meeting, what happened, and my thoughts on why, as well as some comments on the four draft documents that were the subject of the day’s discussions. Finally, a few suggestions. Needless to say the views below are my own, as a rank and file member, though I have looked closely at YP developments to date and a wide variety of perspectives on such: see an earlier article on this site YOUR PARTY STRATEGY: SOME THOUGHTS by Larry O’Hara 24/9/25 – Notes From The Borderland which among other things provides far more detail on Roger Hallam than the account below. I still remain staggered so few people have taken proper note of his role to date but hope that will change.
THE RUN UP TO THE CONFERENCE
It must be said this was hardly optimal or professional. At a national level, the 4 documents only appeared on the YP web-site 17/10, but had been promised for mid-September. Even then, it took more than a day for them to be printable in any way other than copying and pasting individual pages. Two hours of my life I won’t get back. The email announcing Assemblies (14/10) had a dig at those administering the first (Zarah Sultana announced) membership portal, stating that those who joined that way had/have to furnish proof they are members, because “we have not received the data of those members from MoU Operations LTD. We have been doing everything in our power to secure this transfer, and we are still hopeful of receiving it shortly”. This email did not mention a very plausible reason for those involved in MOU delaying the transfer: what I call the Collective/Church of Corbyn faction (Karie Murphy/Amy Jackson Corbyn et al: hereafter CC faction) definitely now completely running the show, want the funds (£855,000) but expect those in MOU (Andrew Feinstein/Beth Winter/Jamie Driscoll) to retain personal liability for whatever fines the Information Commissioner’s Office might throw at them. Why might there be fines you might ask if new to this political polka? Well, that is because the CC faction, with the full approval of Jeremy Corbyn, actually reported those running the portal to the ICO, bringing recruitment to a shuddering halt, and losing (for good) much political goodwill from many of the 800,000 who want something better. An indirect inference they expect the MOU controllers (aligned with what I call Team Zara, hereafter TZ faction) to take the rap can be found in the Draft Constitution’s Section 4—” Members indemnify the Party against any liabilities arising from their application or membership”. Andrew Feinstein has said publicly the cash is being retained “until legal frameworks are in place”[1]. If I (or indeed Feinstein) are mistaken here, I sincerely apologise, but given Sultana and Corbyn have now apparently reconciled, cannot think of another good reason for the funds/data still not having been transferred. And no, I don’t think either the TZ (or CC) factions are personally corrupt.
So much for the national context. As for the local, on 16/10 the (unavoidably) self-organised Norfolk YP published on their X account an ‘Open Letter’ complaining they had not been contacted about the local assembly, until shortly before, giving them “no time to print out flyers and organise some kind of membership drive prior to the Assembly” and that they had been “given zero clarity over the purpose of these assemblies”. Presciently “we strongly suspect the purpose of these assemblies is to push forward documents with the veneer of democratic deliberation, but which in practice are strongly undemocratic”. They went on to request either a postponement or three separate Eastern County Assemblies. And finally, “complete transparency on the purpose of these assemblies, who is making decisions, who is making the edits to the documents etc.”[2]. The question has to be asked, why East of England as the first venue? The answer is not hard to find: organised Left groups are thin on the ground, the only one I saw was a few SWP members hawking their wares. Thus, if you wanted the first Assembly to take place without great dissension, and much less debate, the ideal place. Which precedent can then be used to keep the peasants (sorry, members) in line elsewhere. That’s my take on it anyway.
THE VENUE/CONFERENCE FORMAT OUTLINED
To be fair, the venue (in Magdalen Street Norwich) was fine: lift access, spacious, if a little chilly. I did baulk slightly at the presence of two security staff at the entrance, but they seemed cheerful enough, and with the far right increasingly active on the streets, probably a good idea. Numbers were about 200-250, most rather older than younger, and virtually entirely white: but we are talking about East Anglia here don’t forget. No refreshments of any sort, though water was provided in the afternoon: in jugs not bottles, very ecologically conscious (maybe). As often the case with Left meetings, the time-honoured tradition of starting late was adhered to (5 past 12 not 11:30).
After an awkward and clunky short video from Corbyn & Sultana (separate not together now you ask) telling us it was ‘Your Party’–and an embarrassing few seconds when the CC faction’s ‘Peace & Justice Project’ logo flashed up on screen– Councillor Sean Halsall of Southport Independents told us “today is about you having your space to discuss your ideas”. More detail was then provided by co-host Artin Giles, who outlined the day’s structure; which was broadly followed.
- Everybody self-divided into small circles, each with a facilitator, who was to move between groups depending on what was being discussed. Due to a facilitator shortage groups became larger
- After a 10-minute period for individuals to introduce themselves, each group was to discuss a different fragment of the Constitution and Standing Orders for 1 hour 10 minutes
- The consensus outcome of each group was to be noted down by a scribe and then handed to the co-hosts.
- The claimed idea was feedback notes would be captured on a google form, one for each question and each Assembly
- Within “the next couple of weeks” the online membership portal will be turned on for individual comments/edits.
- After a 15-minute break, 30 minutes each was to be devoted to looking at political strategy and the one year strategy (or rather an aspect of it)
- At the end there was partial public feedback then concluding words from the co-hosts.
- On the way out, people were offered post-it notes to write who should be in affiliated groups and organisational sections. Didn’t see anybody doing so. For those of an older vintage, Play School without the professionalism. An important issue though: I surmise that back-door Hallam’s coterie want to enter through: he seems already to have waltzed in the front door.
As might be expected from such a disparate atomised participatory structure, to an extent it depended on what group you were in. I seemed becalmed in a group of 1970s liberals. Thus, most of them (but not all) objected to the use of the words working class, affected a naïve faith in MPs/leaders (that might be a Labour Party trait of course), didn’t want opposition to genocide or Zionism in YP political aims, didn’t see why there should be guaranteed Executive Committee places for ethnic minorities or indeed youth. This was described as ‘tokenism’ rather than a very real attempt to rectify structural discrimination. The idea of leadership term limits and rotation was looked upon with similar horror. To every argument I put arguing members should have the power, the riposte was if you don’t think the leaders etc. have done a good job, you can then vote them out. A bit late frankly: prevention is far better than cure. I got the idea most people in my specific group weren’t really interested in running the party themselves, just adhering to the tried and failed method of leaving it to the notables upstairs. It should not be thought I think small discussion groups at Conferences are bad in themselves: but they should just be one component.
Even with the best will in the world there was clearly not enough time for proper discussion of all four documents in detail anyway. There was also what might just be an anomaly: when we were discussing one question on policy, I think it was, the facilitator had been given an entirely different set of key questions/prompts other than those published: and this only on the morning of the Assembly.
To be fair, I gather sentiment in other groups was far more member-led and radical, but it did tell me YP needs an education programme for members, fast.
The key question is how can it be guaranteed members feedback even on the documents is used constructively? The answer is there can be no guarantee at all: not only do people in each group have no real knowledge of what other groups thought, it isn’t even clear we all looked at the same things: in fact structurally unlikely. An indication the whole process is top-down was something Giles let slip “by the end we want to have at least three amendments to each document”. Even at a glance each deserves far more than three, but that right at the start those running the show have such a target is telling and deeply disturbing. There is no credible system of choosing amendments to discuss or incorporate: the whole thing is (disgracefully) even more opaque than Labour Conference procedures, where at least you can find out which union leader or whoever ignored their member’s wishes. Now that, I grant you, is an achievement of sorts, though not one to celebrate.
Given no indicative votes on anything whatsoever, from the point of view of verifiably ascertaining what all attendees thought, this Assembly was a wash-out. A majority of delegates may well have agreed with me on the above contested matters, but in the absence of a vote who knows?
In the short feedback session at the end a number of points raised including:
- Why have local branches not been set up yet?
- Who wrote these four documents?
- The CEC should not oversee local branch elections, nor micro-manage branch meeting discussions
- Who owns the membership data?
- The whole thing feels top down with far too little communication from the centre.
All valid points, many applauded, but none at all answered: shouting from the empty into the void, of no enduring impact whatsoever. Intentionally in my view, given the Assembly’s pre-planned structure.
IS THERE AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION?
It could be said (indeed has been) that setting up a new party is very difficult, and one should not always assume the worst of those in charge. I get that, I really do, and am more than willing to put a lot of mis-steps down to the CC faction wanting to relive the (near) glory days of the 2017 Election, making YP a Left-wing version of the Labour Party, with an added plus. Which is the magic ingredient supposedly provided by Roger Hallam of Extinction Rebellion fame. After all, it is him who has championed ‘sortition’ as a means of selecting participants in meetings, and advocated Assemblies. I will examine both these ideas in detail elsewhere, soon, but suffice to say sortition is the death-knell for any accountability/transparency/policy consistency, and Assemblies as I have alluded to elsewhere on this site, may (or may not) be appropriate for single-issue campaigns, but not for political party policy-making[iii]. These two devices are useful however, if you want to put Green lipstick on the pig in a poke the YP start-up has been so far. The utter shit-show launch, squandering the goodwill of hundreds of thousands, has not even in recent times been marked (to put it mildly) by manifestly good intentions on both sides. As the dig about MOU and data shows.
IS THE FIX IN ALREADY?
While lots could be said about the 4 documents, tempus fugit. One troubling aspect does need to be urgently sorted. So important I see it as an existential question for YP. The Year One Organisational Strategy Paper states (points 3/4iv) that up until 31/3/26 the party will “continue to be stewarded on a strictly temporary basis by the Independent Alliance of MPs” (hereafter IA)—in which of course Sultana is outnumbered 5 to 1. A few pages later is a section worth reproducing in full (minus references to Wales & Scotland as not applicable):
“7. Elections 2026
i For the unique case of the 2026 Local Government elections, Your Party will seek to support all Independent socialist candidates of good standing where there is evidence of candidates being engaged in community campaigning and having the support of their local communities or trades unions branches.
iii. For the unique case of the 2026 local elections only, in the absence of properly established national branch and regional party infrastructure, the Independent Alliance shall facilitate democratic selections of candidates by local members in their area, under OMOV. After this, due diligence shall be undertaken, conforming to rules against misuse for political purposes laid down under the standing orders, and a full candidate list shall be submitted to the Electoral Commission by the IA. Your Party will agree not to support any candidate where there is any unresolved local conflict.
iv. This is a unique process to be adopted due to time constraints and in the absence of agreed branch structures. This process shall apply for 2026 only and will not be repeated thereafter”.
Taken together, I understand this to mean (and our group facilitator pushed back on me more strongly on this than anything else interestingly, constantly citing ‘The Electoral Commission’ like a ghoul waving a shroud)
–the IA will have the right to choose the May 2026 candidates on the basis of evidence presented to them.
–there is clearly no intent to establish a national branch infrastructure any time soon, for otherwise why leave everything to the IA to oversee candidate selection?
–while OMOV will be in place for local members, this does not include actually choosing who the range of possible candidates are: or rather, not having the final say. As in the Labour Party where the NEC excluded candidates on blatantly political grounds it is to be the IA that undertakes “due diligence” and then submits candidate lists to the Electoral Commission.
–candidates are not to be under the YP banner (or whatever name is decided upon) but instead (according to my facilitator and seemingly consistent with point iii) the IA will register their own name with the Electoral Commission.
In case the above interpretation be considered unduly alarmist, I draw attention to Birmingham IA MP Ayoub Khan, currently rightly hero of the hour for spearheading the campaign to prevent genocide-supporting Maccabi Haifa football thugs polluting Birmingham with their presence as they did Amsterdam last year, when their team plays Aston Villa. However, it has been suggested (and the council website seems to confirm this) he is still a Lib Dem councillor, campaigning with Lib Dem councillors in his ward and supposedly favouring a recent Tory candidate who helped him get elected, to be the Your Party candidate in Lozells. This may, or may not, be true, but not only is he not to my knowledge socialist, can we realistically trust the IA ‘stewards’ in charge of YP to fully investigate this matter? Is the YP to merely become, like Respect did in Tower Hamlets in the end, a flag of convenience for careerists with no socialist allegiance?
The simplest most democratic solution to the May 2026 candidate selection issue is to set up local branches asap: and why not already? They can then, and should, choose their candidates, not rely on approval from on high. The real question: is YP to be a bottom-up member led party, or isn’t it? There can be no good motive for not doing this: if the IA have (or certainly will have after the MOU stand-off is resolved) all local member details then why not let the members set branches up officially, as many have been doing unofficially already?
AND NOW?
If this kind of proceeding, and structure, is replicated at the other Assemblies, I fear for YP. Yes, there was broad positivity in the room, but without local branches and a truly democratic structure, the party will be over before it has properly begun. Further down the line, I am not hostile in principle to OMOV: but clear options transparently arrived at need to be laid before members. Action is needed now however, given the Assembly process has already started. In my opinion, all groups committed to reviving the YP project (currently on life support as has been said before) need to seize forthcoming Assemblies by the scruff of the neck:
- Collectively agree (the Manchester TWT Declaration showed the way) on a set of basic democratic changes to the documents that should be prioritised: I have mentioned one regarding candidates but there are others. Maybe highlight four or five
- Get a leaflet and sufficient comrades together to blitz forthcoming Assemblies pushing those 5 issues: not to steam-roller them through, but allow proper discussion
- Right at the start of each Assembly, openly challenge the current undemocratic structure, and while certainly splitting into affinity groups, argue for the importance of the five issues being discussed, and voted on democratically.
- Get somebody local authoritative/local to take over the chair.
- Have open debate on these five or so issues, in which Halsall/Giles and other CC faction members are of course allowed to argue their point of view. A short affinity group discussion before each debate: fine too.
- Record votes and then send them back to the MPs/Centre. Then the game is afoot.
This course of action is only a starting point, and won’t be popular with Assembly co-hosts, or indeed some (not all) facilitators if they are in the Hallam/Umbrella clique, but to coin a phrase, frankly I don’t give a damn. To coin another phrase, one cannot be right against the membership: yet this process is.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV3C7j8F8iw
[2] Your Party Norfolk @yourpartyNR
[iii] YOUR PARTY STRATEGY: SOME THOUGHTS by Larry O’Hara 24/9/25 – Notes From The Borderland
We welcome comments on the above article, critical and otherwise: contact in the first instance nfbmagazine@yahoo.co.uk. It is a continuation of NFB’s deep dive into YP politics and strategy, done because we are broadly supportive, even if alongside other research and interventions. Take a look around the site to see what we get up to…Many thanks to H & V for the usual stellar (and in this case immediate) assistance as usual, but the above text is ultimately down to me. L
About The Author
