YOUR PARTY STRATEGY: SOME THOUGHTS by Larry O’Hara 24/9/25

Note to readers: we believe the internet reduces attention spans and is often too distracting to encourage readers to follow a complex argument. Stick with it and only check footnotes at the end: or even better print the article off, Where apposite Larry uses unusual words that may seem arcane. They aren’t: its Tik-Tok and Twitter that are inane. For our detailed views on life the internet and everything, look around the rest of the site: not forgetting the shop: hard copy is our gold standard. We all had a good craic contributing to this piece: which will probably not be a feeling universally shared by some featured. Get over it. We are all Palatine Action. Ciao! Heidi Svenson 25/9/25

While events inside YP have until recently been shrouded in relative secrecy, this has been shattered by recent open warfare between the Corbyn/Collective faction on the one hand, and those clustered around Zarah Sultana, Andrew Feinstein and Jeremy Driscoll on the other. Essential background to all this provided by Archie Woodrow’s excellent Prometheus article[1]. Whatever the outcome there is a clear appetite for a political alternative, and now a good time to address the question of Your Party (YP) ultimate goals, over and beyond winning elections, and how they anticipate getting there. Quite rightly, full consideration of this also requires scrutiny of YP’s possible future structure and electoral strategy. To follow in subsequent articles.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

We need to look not just at this and that policy, but strategy, specifically the different strategies on offer. Whether to one party or two: though at time of writing it looks like one[2], despite the crass appearance of Jeremy Corbyn alone (no Sultana) on today’s announcement of a reopened YP membership portal. This may please the Church of Corbyn (CC) but few others. And to clarify, I am definitely in the camp of Team Zarah (TZ). While it remains to be seen in which camp those who have offered strategic insights, especially James Schneider and Roger Hallam, end up (Team Zarah or the Church of Corbyn if hostilities formally recommence) their ideas are worth assessing in their own right. Currently, Schneider has made no direct public comment on the YP dividing lines, merely reposting one post that people shouldn’t post about what is happening in YP[3]. Very helpful: not. However, Hallam has put his oar in, big time. On 23/9 (yesterday) he posted on Linkedin a blatant attempt to use the current hiatus to siphon off potential YP funds. It states “800,000 people. 10,000 volunteers. £150,000 target. When leaders drop the ball it’s us who pick it up….while the centre hesitates, we organise….no captain is coming to our rescue; we must step up and collectively steer the ship…Drive history forward and upgrade democracy for good”[4]. In less than 24 hours, £3,175 was raised before donations were closed. To continue the nautical analogy, this intervention contradicts the bogus claim fed naïve New Statesman journalist Megan Kenyon that Hallam is “in service to the Corbyn-Sultana project”[5]. No, this was piracy: and if you read what follows, will come as no surprise. Though it looks like this manoeuvre was nipped in the bud, it shows where Hallam is coming from.

WHY STRATEGY IS IMPORTANT

James Meadway (former economic adviser to John McDonnell) has commented “strategy has become almost a dirty word for some on the English left, but if we want to win, we need to think about what constituencies we are appealing to, since they won’t be the same as even a decade ago, and develop policy [that] appeals to them”[6]. Yet the term should not seem alien: it merely refers to a plan of action designed to achieve what should be YP’s aim: transcending capitalism and instituting socialism: anything less in current circumstances is futile. While important clues about YP’s direction of travel will emerge from the forthcoming policy/foundational documents promised by the Corbyn/Collective (hereafter CC) faction, and any equivalents if there is divergence from ‘Team Zahra’ (TZ), even these will not reveal all about possible strategy. While a manifesto/programme can be expected to outline ultimate goals and immediate policies in general terms, detail on how to prioritise and deal with setbacks (including opposition) are integral to robust strategic planning and need to be already in the minds of those tasked with implementing policies. Otherwise, the government might appear weak and directionless, caught in a downward spiral of unpopularity and incompetence. Sound familiar? I am well aware YP (both iterations) is/will be Left Reformist, whereas our perspective is further Left. Nonetheless, what follows will hopefully be illuminating. Looking at the views of some key figures likely to influence policy is vital background enabling us to form a judgement on possible YP strategy.

CORBYN ERA REMNANTS

Those until recently calling the shots in YP, the CC faction, are primarily those close to Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour Leader of the Opposition 2015-20 such as Karie Murphy and Pamela Fitzpatrick (of Collective/The Peace & Justice Project) and Amy Jackson, Corbyn’s Political Secretary at that time. This grouping’s strategic approach has been described as ‘Parliamentary Leninism’. They haven’t much notion of strategy other than winning elections then assuming it would be plain sailing (or at least easily navigable waters) thereafter. Wonderfully encapsulated by Pamela Fitzpatrick speaking of opposition to YP “they are going to come after us” she then goes on “the way you change things is that you legislate for it. You can’t legislate unless you get in power. Simple as that”[7]. Would that life and politics were that simple: it isn’t and never has been. The ‘getting into power’ bit defeated Fitzpatrick and others in the inner circle last time round and without a different and well-executed plan will again.

Given the dominance until recently of the Collective/Corbyn faction, we have to ask, has their strategic thinking improved? Worryingly, the leaked (CC faction) proposal for the YP’s interim structure[8], while outlining who is in charge (MPs) and Head of the Executive Team (ET), plus ten ET members, left the Team function ‘Political Strategy—What Does Your Party Stand For?’ entirely blank: ‘To Be Arranged’. Which either means strategy is unimportant, or at least not a top priority or beyond discussion as self-evident: all worrying options. That said, however flawed the November Conference arrangements might turn out to be (sortition is especially problematic) this is all light years ahead of traditional Labour Party practice, habitually smoke-filled rooms, secret deals and endless compositing meetings. Thankfully, the CC faction are not the only players when it comes to strategic matters, two individuals stand out as important: James Schneider and Roger Hallam. Though the precise extent of Hallam’s influence is sometimes hard to measure, it is certainly real.

JAMES SCHNEIDER

A nuanced and reflective perspective within YP has been provided by James Schneider, co-founder of Momentum, under Corbyn Head of Strategic Communications and de facto the leading public YP strategist to date. His output is thus extensively scrutinised in what follows. I am well aware Schneider is a hate figure for some and will look at his views on Zionism etc. elsewhere, but this piece resolutely plays the ball, not the man. He says of the Corbyn era “plans for legislation were drawn up with the shadow teams but tended to treat the party programme as something that could be implemented through existing state machinery, without mass mobilisation and with little establishment backlash”[9]. And also “not only must the left bloc advance a political plan for seizing the reins of the state, but we must also develop a strategy for transforming it”[10]. So, he certainly has a ‘sense of the state’: a marked improvement on mere instrumentalist views seeing the state as neutral

While some commentators mention Schneider’s 2022 book ‘Our Bloc’ few seem to have read it[11]. A pity as it gives rather more detail than recent outings concerning his strategic thinking. A hardly accidental lacuna: for many today only things on the internet are real, therefore anything not on the internet is immaterial. And difficult, well-nigh impossible, to easily critique a kindle or audio-book. Such remarks are no doubt music to the ears of my colleague Verona[12], but nonetheless true.

Commenting on Schneider’s recent New Left Review interview, veteran (and often lucid) commentator Tim Pendry states his views “may be more important than Sultana’s in giving us a clue as to how leading activists, those who are almost full time politically engaged but outside the formal structures of power think”[13]. One Labour Left critic has written “getting an understanding of what the Corbyn-Sultana movement would do required a deep dive into political theory with James Schneider holding one’s hand every inch of the way”[14]. Schneider’s importance, may, in a bad actor way, explain some, though clearly not all, of the hostility directed towards him. Be that as it may, given the new party has not yet taken tangible shape in the public eye, a bit remiss of Pendry to say of Schneider’s (and Zarah Sultana’s) strategic ideas “the analysis is one of hope and intent rather than disciplined strategic thought. They need a leavening of old style Marxist and pragmatic trades union discipline to come close to comprehending the nature of the current crisis and what they can do about it”[15]. Read on and make up your own mind.

ROGER HALLAM

Another intriguing contributor to strategy, from outside Corbynist circles, is Roger Hallam, Co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain/Just Stop Oil and numerous other initiatives. While in prison (sentenced to five years for a Just Stop Oil Zoom call) he wrote the recently published ‘Your Party: Grasping The Enormity Of The Moment’[16], and much of the critique that follows is based on that book, though Hallam’s other writings are looked at where relevant. He is a dynamic charismatic individual, with a proven track-record of political start-ups, and the book is written in an engaging conversational way, including attempts to anticipate and counter critics. Like Schneider’s book, I definitely recommend reading it. Hallam claims (no reason to doubt him) to have worked closely and be on friendly terms with Schneider[17],indeed it has been suggested Schneider is involved with ‘Umbrella’, a group unquestionably sponsored by Just Stop Oil [18]. Hallam also claims to have been meeting Zarah Sultana “and various connected people”[19] 17/8/25, promising he would give his book (presumably the typescript) to some YP movers and shakers, which he has surely done[20]. Not surprising, or a bad idea, that those involved in YP planning met him: after all, while no formal membership as such, XR calculated that in 2020 they had 250,000 members in 70 countries: now claiming a slightly more modest 1,080 branches worldwide: still impressive[21]. So why would a new party start-up hoping for mass membership not seek Hallam’s advice? He seems to have influenced YP strategy in several ways already: a 15/9/25 YP email announcing the Conference timetable spoke of a forthcoming campaign The People Speak–“a massive door knocking campaign to ask people what they want from a new party and asking them to join in”. Something Hallam continuously advocates in the book[22], and other Hallam themes in that same email are choosing Conference delegates by lottery (sortition)[23]—although he is not alone in favouring this method[24] and a great emphasis on training trainers [25]. Despite Schneider and Hallam’s record of working together, and evident mutual respect, I discern a marked difference between the value and practicality of their relative contributions, as will be seen. In fact, I see Hallam’s influence on Schneider as a bad thing and would welcome a parting of the ways.

NOW YOU SEE THEM, NOW YOU DON’T

Perhaps the most eye-catching aspect of Schneider’s strategic thought is his July 2025 New Left Review interview assertion that the new party should aim for “the construction of popular unity: taking the constituencies that currently form a sociological majority and translating them into a political majority and translating them into a political majority. In Britain these are the asset-poor working class, downwardly mobile graduates and racialised communities”[26]. The interview also mentions tenant unions, and states almost as an aside that “Britain’s labour movement and cooperatives have traditionally served” to create autonomous spaces. Nothing wrong, and a lot right, with setting out your political stall in terms of who to seek support from. After all, did not Lenin in 1917 appropriate the Left Social Revolutionaries political strategy to formulate his famous slogan ‘Bread Peace Land’[27]?

That said, while targeting specific constituencies makes sense, if those constituencies change, it behoves those switching focus to explain why they are doing so, for strategy should not be built on constantly shifting sands. In 2021, Schneider’s Novara Media article ‘How We Win: The Movements’[28] advocated a slightly different set of recruits to win over. True, renters were there, as too ‘racialised communities’ although here defined as the anti-racist movement: not the same thing. The anti-racist movement has never just (or even primarily) been composed of ethnic minorities: follow the link[29]. As I understand it the term ‘racialised communities’ usually refers to an externally imposed label, not a form of self-identification like Black Lives Matter at all. So certainly, a sloppy term, without further explanation. Trade unions were present in 2021, given far more prominence (first place) than in the 2025 New Left Review interview. Next constituency on the 2021 list has now vanished: the unemployed worker’s movement. Even more startling, the environmental movement, there in 2021, now isn’t. There was also, in 2021, no mention of the ‘asset-poor’ working class.

Being charitable, in 2021 Schneider was just developing the ideas that reached book form in 2022 with ‘Our Bloc’. The 2022 book exhibits some continuity with his 2025 interview, though partial. The labour movement gets fully three pages in the book, described as “the largest and best organised social movement in the UK, and a necessary lynchpin for a wider set of progressive campaigns”[30]. However, if you scour the interview, now no mention as such of this ‘lynchpin’—a term referring to something vital after all. Extinction Rebellion and similar like Just Stop Oil are prominent in the book, but not now. Commitment to a Green New Deal (GND), on the Corbynist Peace & Justice Programme’s list of five key policies, has not featured subsequently for them. This matters: especially if the intention is at some point constructive relations with Greens. In the 2022 book Schneider stated “I would settle on the Green New Deal as the most effective slogan for a left bloc in this time of climate breakdown”[31] but the GND has now vanished into the (polluted?) ether. What has changed? The climate crisis certainly hasn’t lessened.

A partial continuity between 2022 book and 2025 interview is of great significance. ‘Our Bloc’ spoke of “finding commonalities between those elements of the working class that benefited from Thatcherite and New Labour expansion in asset ownership and asset-price inflation, and a less well-represented, generally younger, more urban, more diverse, more precarious, more formally educated and less asset-rich working class…This mission should inform our view on what kind of party can win, and win big, in this decade and the next”[32]. This clearly refers to the circa 2.4 million council homes sold since Thatcher’s 1980 legislation, intended to undercut Labour’s social base, which it did. The relevant point is Schneider has now abandoned (or at least does not mention when surely germane) the precise ‘mission’ of finding a commonality between the two class fragments. Whether it can be done is another matter, the salient point is an unwelcome discernible pattern: the Green New Deal, environmental movement, unemployed workers, trade unions as a ‘lynchpin’ and now this mission of reconciling working class people with different asset levels. All disappeared down the Memory Hole, or at least not in plain strategic view. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde’s Lady Bracknell—losing one key strategic component may be regarded as a misfortune: to lose five looks like gross carelessness. What would be really helpful is Schneider explaining not only why these specific strategic/programmatic elements have been dropped but what guarantee the same will not recur with the current top three, and what exactly is the status of the working class in his strategy. These things matter because of the deadly seriousness of the YP project.

Schneider is indubitably not wrong in having both asset-poor workers and downwardly mobile graduates as one key orientation. Thus criticism by John Rees (ex SWP/now Counterfire) that “the new party must aim to construct a base in the core of the working class…It should not limit itself to sociologically invented groups such as ‘asset poor workers, downwardly mobile graduates and racialised people’, recently described by James Schneider…as the target constituency of the new party”[33] is not fair. Leaving aside the class composition of most far left groups, that 639,000 graduates claim universal credit (12% of the total) is hardly unimportant[34]. Other criticisms of Schneider on this score are slightly unfair too: Andrew Murray says “I’m not really in favour of this disaggregation of the working class…I don’t see the value of using terms like ‘asset poor workers’ for instance”[35]. Yet Murray himself has previously stated “the development of the mass struggles which will actually power progress towards socialism is the work of mass campaigns, from CND and Stop The War to Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion…such movements, their connexions and cross-currents. Can seed a new class politics, a new movement of all the exploited and oppressed against the capitalist system”[36]. Intriguing, as this implies the agents of transformation are (not reducible to class) social movements that then somehow ‘seed’ class politics. Hardly superior strategically, and surely success in this endeavour would mean reaggregating elements that by definition had been previously disaggregated, the very term he objects to.

While Schneider’s outline of target constituencies is inconsistent at times, Hallam’s is more worrying. He prays in aid (undoubtedly important) Frankfurt School Marxist Theodore Adorno to argue against targeting a defined constituency, particularly the working class. Hallam wants us to take from Adorno the idea “that all constructed identities are basically false. We can choose to put the working class first but in the very act of doing so we reify and reduce a complex reality”[37]. Hallam’s frequent references to a Mrs Jones from Bolton (or sometimes Moss Side) and waxing lyrical about Chilean peasants representing something “outside modernity itself”[38] impress not one jot. Despite occasional rhetoric, nothing is further from Hallam’s mind than building a movement to confront capitalism, which Schneider (in his own way) tries to do. It sometimes shows, as when Hallam calls for sectional assemblies, which “can be run by charities, local businesses, religious groups, trade unions, sport groups and such like and be able to feed into the all area assemblies and participatory budgeting processes”[39]. Doesn’t sound very anti-capitalist: and it isn’t.

SCHNEIDER’S VIEW OF YP AIMS

Where exactly, is Your Party, in Schneider’s perspective, hoping to take us? Tim Pendry thinks Schneider’s socialism “is actually radical progressivism. This is also the emerging model of the younger generation of urban Democrats in the US where the native tradition of progressive activism is being rebranded as socialism and now exported”[40]. Be that as it may, it is nonetheless striking that (with one exception covered below) Schneider gives little detail about what sort of society he wants to see, other than the institutional framework. Yes, there is emphasis on how to get ‘there’ but little on what ‘there’ might look like. ‘Our Bloc’ speaks of a “goal: constructing a social majority for change with a political vehicle and the organised forces in society—trade unions, social movements, progressive organisations and campaigns—to carry it out”[41]. Not much else. In his New Left Review interview Schneider states “our long term aim, far beyond what can be achieved in the 2020’s, should be to establish a society that recognises the essential dignity of every person…socialising the economy, transforming our position in the chain of imperial relations and the global division of labour, and democratising the state”[42]. Hardly gets the pulse racing: suspect Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (and Andy Burnham for sure) might sign up to much of that at least in outline. Actually, unless I’ve missed it, don’t recall Schneider using the ‘S’ word (socialism) anywhere, or if he does, far less frequently than Zarah Sultana.

HALLAM’S VIEW OF YP AIMS

Hallam’s vision makes me wonder about the state of his cannabinoid receptors. How about this for a start: “National Citizens Assemblies created by the movement/party in combination with other popular actors—unions, churches, campaigns—which then consider particular issues. Through the standard combination of national sortition selection, open deliberation and lack of external pressure from private interests we can credibly establish the national popular will to gain democratic legitimacy for radical change”. Point of order here: why exactly would ‘private interests’ not exert external pressure? Anyway, to continue “these national assemblies…can progressively gain more effective, and then constitutional, power—an end point in the UK being making an assembly permanent by replacing the House of Lords”—really, how will this actually happen, won’t the existing ruling class (and corpulent freeloaders in the Lords) object? When Hallam says replacing the Lords, does he want them to have veto power over legislation or what? Another article from his camp covered below makes me think he does[43]. Surely a recipe for deadlock as often happens in the US Congress. He goes on: “the fundamental strategic move here is for a future movement/party government to follow the lead of these assemblies and so derive their political power from their legitimacy”. Really? Why would elected governments voluntarily subordinate themselves to an external assembly by following their lead? If Hallam’s answer is by this stage the government would be a YP one is this not creating two potential centres of power and legitimacy, a sure recipe for conflict? If a YP government, and MPs selected by sortition, who knows what their policies might be, and what if they go rogue? If the government isn’t a YP one, why would they surrender their authority? Hallam’s ambitions are boundless; he openly wants a world government from below—his “meta-strategic prize international assemblies with the global popular power to tame the power of global capital”[44]. Exactly how, not specified. His end point is that “Global Assemblies can be selected from effectively the whole of the world’s population. A parallel process then develops in terms of popular power. Initially these assemblies will only have symbolic power but they will start to come up with demands which can be used by national and international campaigns and movements…The final step is when these assemblies are able to parallel and surpass the United Nations as the legitimate and authentic voice of the people of the world…and gain effective and even constitutional power to enforce the will of a global democracy upon state and private actors”[45]. In order to enforce that will (which the UN cannot do now due to permanent Security Council state’s veto power and no army) the capacity to use force has to be there. But in any case, who could possibly believe, even if this vision of global government is desirable (it is not) that existing states, multinational corporations and financial behemoths, never mind military alliances, will calmly sit back and allow this to proceed without challenge?

While I apologise for inflicting Hallam’s vision on you, the above clearly shows what he actually wants is power, for there is nothing in the book about actually improving people’s lives materially and in terms of health/work etc. He would deny it is power for himself, but his is the megalomaniac vision. The intriguing question, given Hallam is no socialist, concerns his motives for gravitating towards YP. After all, as he admits, YP achieved 600,000 expressions of interest before most involved had presumably ever encountered (and thankfully still haven’t) Hallam’s current brand of snake oil: non-linear thermodynamics. He uses the ‘S’ word once, referring to “that absolutely fundamental democratic principle: we come together or we fall apart. This then is the truly democratic socialism for our century”[46]. Er, no it isn’t: just meaningless twaddle. Sadly, Hallam forgets to mention what would be the crowning glory of his ‘meta-strategy’—Lunar Assemblies. Think about it….

Returning to Earth, lest it be argued communicating an up to date serious vision of a socialist future is impossible, check out Simon Hannah’s recent book which (despite myriad faults I will examine elsewhere) bravely attempts precisely that and deserves serious consideration: ‘Reclaiming The Future’[47]. Sultana has not provided detail (understandably given her current whirlwind proselytising for the new party) but definitely sees the need—“to talk about the kind of society we actually want and to describe it in detail rather than just sloganeering. What are our long-term goals? More time with our loved ones, more green space, universal childcare, free public transport, not worrying about bills”[48]. Exactly.

POPULAR POWER?

Schneider’s relative lack of tangible end-goal description has been seized on by Labour Left critic Don Flynn of Chartist. Somewhat disingenuously Flynn states Schneider’s formulation sounds “similar…to the things that social democratic political formations have claimed to do since the end of the Second World War…electoral blocs which got leftist parties into power in many countries, and popular power followed with nationalisations and the welfare state”[49]. Disingenuous as the very last thing social democracy instituted was popular power, giving people control over anything.

Schneider’s conception of popular power is his most interesting strategic notion. He sees it as—“building structured organisations that people can use to democratically control different parts of their lives, either by winning concessions from capital and the state, or by partially transcending them—decommodifying certain resources or carving out autonomous spaces. This allows people to collectively legislate from below while at the same time creating the conditions for their party to legislate from above”. This has elements of what Carl Boggs termed ‘prefigurative politics’—showing glimpses of an alternative society[50]. It does not explicitly refer to the precise context in which this might take place, which matters because such a situation can only arise in a time of massive social conflict. Popular Assemblies in normal times are too easily co-opted, and merely toothless talking shops. The most famous example of genuine popular power hitherto occurred during the 1970-73 Allende government in Chile. The significance of this fact seems to have eluded Hallam.…

He says of Chile “the new dictatorship in 1974 banned all political parties. The void was filled by thousands of bottom up participatory mutual aid set ups…Notice already—this is what happens when the political parties are removed from the scene. New social forms and cultures are given space to flourish based upon participation, pluralism and autonomy—these anti-concepts…Critically then, what motivated them were procedural matters, not political policy matters”[51]. A passage ignorant stupid and disturbing in equal measure. Ignorant because he does not acknowledge there was an extensive basis for mutual aid set ups even after the 1973 military coup precisely because the Allende government had led to a proliferation of forms of popular power. Stupid because he ignores the fact political policy matters were not up for discussion because it was a dictatorship, and people understandably afraid of raising such things because it was pointless, and they might be arrested or disappeared/murdered as happened to Allende and many supporters. Disturbing because it clearly shows Hallam approves of such anti-democratic measures as abolishing/shutting down political parties.

Andre Gorz (name-checked in ‘Our Bloc’ p.91) has this to say–“a socialist strategy of progressive reform does not mean that islands of socialism can emerge in the sea of capitalism.  But it does mean the building up of working class and popular power…the creation of centres of social management and of direct democracy, participation in the major industries and cooperatives of production: it means the conquering of positions of strength in representative bodies….an intensified and deepened antagonism between the social production required by the needs and aspirations of the people on the one hand and the requirements of capital accumulation and power on the other”[52]. Pertinent because Gorz sees popular power as integral to challenging capitalism directly, as in Chile 1970-73[53]. That this failed is no reason not to try it again but rather to get it right next time, as opposed to (like Hallam) welcoming the aftermath of that failure. Unlike Schneider, at least moving towards some approximation of popular power, Hallam really doesn’t have a clue. While he makes the (under) statement that “on the national level the biggest challenge is the actualisation of popular power in the face of corporate opposition”[54] his solution is national citizens assemblies then resulting in the ludicrous scenario of disembodied ever larger meetings getting more and more influence unchallenged as outlined above, culminating in replacing the UN.  Even more disturbing than such strategic vacuity, he does not understand the difference between popular power and transient spectacle. Thus, he refers to “one of the few great moments of popular power in the UK since the Second World War—the Extinction Rebellion Occupation of Central London”[55]. If it was genuine popular power, rather than a de facto establishment approved stunt, perhaps Hallam might care to elaborate on what he admits in the book: before that event “I had been in about a dozen meetings with the police. I could tell from the tone of their voices that they would not stop us. Obviously they did not say we could do it, but I sensed that they would not prevent the occupation”[56]. Why, one wonders?

POPULAR ALTERNATIVE?

Which brings us to Schneider’s “final form of political construction: that of a popular alternative. Popular unity and popular power demonstrate that there are alternative ways to organise society as a whole, while also building a majoritarian plan for government that is capable of meeting people’s needs in the short to medium term…we will begin to see the emergence of new forms of popular protagonism that diffuse struggle and control throughout society”[57]. So, an implicit distinction between popular power and the popular alternative: by inference a more developed later final stage. While it might seem unfair to criticise a reformist for being, well, reformist, this implies an untroubled route-map whereby our side develops plans and institutions diffusing control without ferocious capitalist resistance that would make manoeuvres against Corbyn 2016-19 seem like non-competitive croquet. Or rather, it seems Schneider is confident resistance can be overcome as a result of unspecified struggle. Not just struggle however: Schneider usefully suggests the government should proceed carefully, putting forward in stages reforms that will be popular and also undermine the capitalist class: what Gorz called non-reformist reforms. Nonetheless, and even if the government does that, the struggle ensuing would surely be against elements of the capitalist class, the media and fractions inside the very state the government will be trying to use to meet ‘people’s needs in the short to medium term’. Far more realistic than this (by omission) rose-tinted view and explicit on the question of capitalist resistance is Andrew Murray. He points out that “by not forswearing capital controls you immediately adopt a much more confrontational approach to capital, and you are forced to think through how you would respond to resistance. The fact is that any movement towards socialism in this country is going to have to involve a period of relative autarky and disengagement from the world system. During this period, the aim should be to encourage people to seize control of their own political and economic destinies—taking advantage of the very low esteem in which parliamentarism is already held”[58]. My basic point is the more popular power develops, and class/social struggle intensifies, the wider the chasm between events on the ground and in parliament/the state will become. An argument for another day, that Schneider and most Your Party members would not agree with, but accepting this point from the start strategically would help build a rock-solid militant base.

HALLAM CONFABULATES: AGAIN

If Schneider’s attempts at conceptualising popular power/popular alternative are deficient in some respects, he nonetheless addresses the issues. Not so Hallam, who grandly announces early on “this is an essay, not a comprehensive study. It does not tell us what policies to pursue…it is not going to speculate on moves of capital after taking power. There are plenty of better informed and more talented people than me to advise on all that. No, what I am focussing on is how to win…to take control of the British state—to win the next election”[59]. Ignoring the faux humility (the book is an extreme example of narcissistic hubris) this is ridiculous. You cannot hope to ‘win’ or take control of the state or even win an election (not all the same things anyway) unless you have a strategy for countering capital, even before an election. In any case, how would ‘better informed and talented people’ get a hearing from popular assemblies picked out of a digital hat? Clearly, Hallam anticipates himself choosing those experts. Would any advice suggesting a different strategy than ever expanding assemblies actually be listened to? Unfortunately, Hallam throws around like confetti words and concepts he has no understanding of. Thus (and his anti-democratic views are palpable here), he offers “a concrete proposal: there can be no more elections. Elections create power…the process of the political enacts the will of capital. Power and capital then are essentially the same force…if you take over power you do not change the system—you just change”[60]. One is moved to ask: might his hostility to elections be related to Hallam’s own dismal performance in such? In the 2019 European Elections (London Constituency) Hallam  obtained a princely 924 votes out of 2,241,681 cast: and as somebody with his mathematical prowess already knows, just 0.04% of the total[61].

In any case, so much in the above quote is awry. Firstly, the state and capital are not identical: Hallam admits to reading the work of at least two Marxists (Adorno and Georg Lukacs) so should have grasped that basic fact[62]. Then we must ask: if he wants to abolish elections, does he think if Your Party wins the next election they should then announce it? When exactly? And would it not be fair to inform electors before the election this is intended? How does this sage think such a proposal whenever put forward will enthuse potential and actual voters? I’ll save him the trouble of a door-knocking campaign to confidently predict it would go down like a bucket of cold sick. Or if the YP government (wisely) doesn’t mention this proposal or enact it, will not the system have changed them as he states above is the danger? In any case, Hallam doesn’t rate policies anyway, for as part of the enemy “terrain…whatever your policies they are going to get battered to death, and besides most of the voters are not interested in policies”[63]. How about putting forward ideas that resonate, defending them against the (undoubtedly) hostile media, even inspiring people? Therefore, actually getting electors—the humanoids voting YP into power remember—interested? Here we see a fundamental difference between single-issue campaigns, like those Hallam has been involved with, and a political process seeking to win over significant sectors of the population. You cannot underestimate the undoubted resistance any transformational YP government would face, bringing to mind Lenin’s question “has the oppressed class arms?”.  Especially because of Hallam’s asinine aside that “a rapid growth process has to be structured and organised. We have seen this problem play out with…various revolutions such as the Tahrir Square events in Egypt”[64]. Asinine for two reasons. Firstly because those demonstrating in Tahrir Square in 2011, massacred by the military[65], were doing so in support of an elected (Muslim Brotherhood) government, overthrown in a military coup. They clearly hadn’t thought elections a waste of time. Secondly, they lacked not organisation, but sufficient armed force to defend themselves. Which meant 900 dead souls were deprived of a chance to read the Harvard University research Hallam cites as proving “choosing nonviolence is the most significant factor in creating long term democratic outcomes”[66]. To criticise those brave people for lack of organisation is to egregiously insult their memory.

HOW MIGHT YP BUILD SUPPORT?

Looking at how the new party might gain support, Schneider’s ‘Our Bloc’ argued for a highly cumbersome ‘federation’ of social movements (p.54-55). More recently he has rowed back on that, suggesting although such might still be possible “you would still need a unified decision-making structure to be able to set up any larger structure”[67]—something else entirely which in principle, and reality, would set up potential friction between the two. Nonetheless, and usefully, he believes  “we need to construct more institutions. This, for me, is the most important strategic task for the party and also the one that is most likely to be overlooked”[68]. He means the likes of workers co-ops, community organisations and renter’s unions. Interesting therefore that Your Party’s (potential) Campaigns & Supporter Engagement Member (as per the leaked CC faction draft structure) is Josh Virasami, Organiser of the London Renter’s Union: who on his X account (@JoshuaVirasami) 8/9/25 said of Green Party Leader Zack Polanski, “I’m gonna be real he’s the only politician I rate right now”—having tweeted two days earlier “any new left party…if it remains shackled to our current cohort of politicians, as bright as some of them may be, will have failed”. Perhaps not totally on message?

Schneider has suggested the new party be unashamedly Left Populist, “creating controversies rather than retreating from them…drawing a big, bold line of antagonism in which there is unity on our side and division on the other. That line of antagonism is extremely simple: the reason for our problems is the bankers and the billionaires. They are at war with us, so we are going to war with them…the party should be based mostly outside Westminster”[69]. A clear nod to the strategy articulated by Chantal Mouffe (about which I have serious reservations)—in ‘Our Bloc’ he refers to his adaptation as ‘movement populism’, where the movements not the party cohere “diverse demands and struggles into a single political antagonism; a majoritarian tilt at state power; and use of controversial, attention-grabbing tactics”[70]. It could be argued this was tried in 2017 (‘For the Many Not the Few’), but was not enough, and the vapid replacement ‘Time For Real Change’ totally undercut in 2019 by Johnson’s simplistic mantra ‘Get Brexit Done’.  So, definitely something in having clear accessible messaging, using all modern media, which goes a long way to explaining the success to date of New York Democratic nominee for Mayor Zohran Mamdani71]. Thus, a venture into Left/Movement populism has the makings of what it takes and should not be lightly dismissed.

HALLAM’S PREVIOUS PRODUCT LAUNCHES

If you stop thinking Hallam is a serious consistent thinker but instead see him as a (brilliant) new product development manager, constantly bringing products with a short shelf-life to the political marketplace, all becomes clear. He undeniably has useful ideas as to how meetings can be structured[72] that the political Left can learn from. That said, when Hallam launches new products (campaigns) he has no concern as to their longevity, and truly mass (as opposed to market segment) appeal: also including corporate donors of course. This understood, his varied interventions, including in Your Party, make perfect sense.

Hallam has form for suggesting utopian (dystopian?) blueprints. In 2019 he argued for “regime change” using the “civil resistance model. This involves mass participation civil disobedience: tens and hundreds of thousands of people breaking the law to create a transformation of political structures…They break the law—they cross the Rubicon. Examples include blocking the road and transport systems….they continue their actions day after day…After one or two weeks following this plan, the historical records show that a regime is highly likely to collapse or is forced to enact structural change”[73]. Yet now, with YP, he wants activists to wander door to door with clip boards instead. Quite different: and if imperative to break the law to avert climate disaster in 2019, why not now? Though his release from jail will have included license conditions precipitating prison recall should he engage in direct action this would not preclude Hallam advocating such in general. As for historical records, they show no such thing as ‘inevitable’ regime collapse/course change: but if they do prove such, why is Hallam now suggesting others abandon the tactic/strategy even if he cannot personally participate?

HALLAM’S PINK PERIOD

In June 2020 Hallam and others involved in ‘Beyond Politics’ (!) then founded the party ‘Burning Pink’ which engaged in various stunts: mass shoplifting and throwing pink paint on various targets such as council/government offices. Burning Pink had a flair for attacking Green organisations too: thus this boast and command in July 2020–“We have thrown paint all over the office of Friends of the Earth to demand that they either disband themselves – or drive their organisation into a final battle with the genocidal UK regime that is failing to address the climate and ecological catastrophe. That means their executives going on hunger strike, their staff going to prison, their supporters blocking the roads. It’s time for them to step up or get out of the way”[74]. Greenpeace, Amnesty International & Christian Aid were also on the receiving end of this performance art. As can be imagined, these stunts caused problems for XR within the Green movement and they quickly distanced themselves, pointing out Hallam was no longer involved in XR[75].

In January 2021 Burning Pink wrote to every Brighton councillor stating  “as members of Britain’s new political party Burning Pink, we demand that you follow your moral, legal, and patriotic duty and declare rebellion against the nihilistic traitors in central government. It is your duty to demand that they immediately slash carbon emissions to protect Britain from the greatest threat in its history”. As reported in the local press ”the group demands the council immediately writes an open “formal letter” to central government giving them three months to initiate a “radical transformation of the national economy so as to achieve net zero emission within five years…Only by making a commitment to rapid decarbonisation can a government claim to be fulfilling its social contract to not destroy the lives and livelihoods of its citizens…This rebellion will consist of cutting off all financial and administrative links with the national administration.”[76]. Needless to say, this initiative fell flat, not least because it displayed astonishing political and economic illiteracy: in 2020-21 Brighton Council received £490 million in Central Government grants[77]. How exactly might the council cutting off links have been anything other than political suicide? But of course, this wasn’t serious politics, just another stunt designed to grow the brand.

No surprise that Burning Pink was de-registered by the Electoral Commission 11/11/22, having done nothing of note other than (temporarily) increase pink paint sales.

HALLAM’S ANTI-GREEN PERIOD

As somebody ostensibly on the side of ‘Green’ politics, Hallam has an aversion to the Green Party which while fully justified in some respects, goes too far. On the eve of the 2024 General Election, he wrote an ‘Open Letter’ to Green Party members correctly criticising Green Party luminary (now MP) Carla Denyer for not agreeing jailed climate protesters be freed. I am totally with Hallam on this. However, he then gives a cod account of how revolutions come about, presenting himself as a revolutionary. Thus “In revolutionary times (when there is no material possibility of reform) the revolutionary wins out. In sociology, this is called structural determinism. Sometimes, not always, what is going to happen is determined. It cannot be avoided”[78]. Use of a phrase like ‘structural determinism’ is vintage Hallam: as with many sociological terms intended to mystify and thus dupe readers into accepting arguments they might otherwise question. For what does structural determinism actually mean?  According to the Oxford University Press either a crude Marxist perspective on the relationship between economic base and social superstructure (evidently not as he is no Marxist), or an anti-humanist position denying the role of human agency[79]. A similar take on the concept suggests it derives from ‘Critical Race Theory’ and means “that a mode of thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually without our conscious knowledge”[80]. Both interpretations have in common the idea that conscious human agency is not important, but more saliently Hallam’s use of the term is linguistically strategic: to deceive audiences into thinking his various product offers are epistemologically sound. That phrases like this are mere props is strongly indicated by the complete absence of the 2024 slogan ‘structural determinism’ from the Your Party book. Instead, this year’s marketing campaign buzzword is the equally meaningless (but also disempowering) ‘non-linear thermodynamics’.

Hallam follows up in his Green Party letter with a hilarious account claiming Lenin favoured revolution in Russia because he thought the Russian army could not beat the Germans in World War One. Lenin was many things, but no Russian nationalist, and had been a revolutionary internationalist for many years prior. After garbling Lenin, Hallam tells us “at 2C, it’s obvious that Western political regimes are going to collapse. The fact that this is not seen as obvious is because of the power of ideology over facts…The neo-liberal progressive, humanist ideology of the Green party blinds it to the facts in 2024”. This use of the words humanist and progressive as insults basically underscores a deeply unpleasant undertone in Hallam: I really think he doesn’t like people. If you think that unjustified, consider what I take to be this implicit threat: “You might have noticed that I have politely left out what will happen to the present leadership of the Green Party after the revolution. For reasons of expediency I will not go into details (we are all hypocrites right, though some more than others) but let’s just say that history doesn’t look kindly on fascist appeasers”[81]. Not very non-violent, is it? Calls to mind Arthur Koestler saying in the end the battle will be between the Communists and the ex-Communists.  

While Hallam is best known for his role in Extinction Rebellion (XR), covered below, mention must be made of Extinction Rebellion’s successor Just Stop Oil (who appear on Collective’s web-site). They ceased activity 26/4/25 and while their site has lots of news (on JSO prisoners/prison releases) and calls for activists to sign up to their “next campaign” nothing is set out. The rhetoric is bold however: they tell us “revolutionary change is needed now more than ever…nothing short of a political and economic revolution is going to get us out of this mess. See you on the streets”[82]. Call me psychic but don’t think they mean distributing election leaflets in Your Party target wards. Do you?

Lest you think Hallam has left political stunts behind him, think again. On 22/9/25 he put on his Linkedin profile a plug for yet another roll of the dice: something called rev21.earth, a domain registered in December 2024 while he was in prison, but which has himself and Robin Boardman, another Extinction Rebellion co-founder, as joint controllers[83]. This group’s strategy includes “the second classic mechanism of democratic upheaval: daily mass demonstrations in the capital and major cities. On this matter, we have ongoing experience within existing movements on how to organise such events”[84]. Indeed, Hallam and friends do: but is it likely to do more than trigger mass arrests? I think not. The route map to a new political system rev21.earth suggest is interesting though: they start with “Initial Citizen’s Assemblies: one-off assemblies deciding government policy (such as Ireland’s policy on abortion)”[85]. The Irish case is noteworthy: as with another religiously sensitive issue previously (same-sex marriage) the Irish government hived off deliberation to such an assembly, which then led to a referendum in favour (as was the assembly)[86]. However not only was/is there no intention by the Irish government to hive off other issues that way, it was the government that decided to do this, and a national referendum (not as such an assembly) that changed the policy. Highly relevant because the next two ‘stages’ are utter moonshine.:

“2. Permanent Sortition-Selected Chamber: Establishing a standing assembly chosen by sortition.

3. Sovereign Sortition-Based Assemblies: Transitioning to a final system where sortition-based assemblies hold sovereign power”[87].

As discussed earlier, this ‘strategy’ is a non-runner and while many might be beguiled, I wonder about the motives of those, like Hallam, propagating it.   

HALLAM THE EXPERT?

Hallam presents himself as having unimpeachable expertise in organisation-building giving three examples of ‘Ruptures’ supposedly proving his ideas have a good chance of success. Let us examine each in turn

The first ‘Rupture’ is what Hallam is most well-known for: the April 2019 occasion when 10,000 XR protestors occupied five Central London sites for ten days. However, in terms of their three central demands: declaration by Parliament of a Climate Emergency, achieving Net Zero in Carbon emissions by 2025 and the creation of a Citizen’s Assembly to advise on reaching this target, only the first was achieved. Yet not only are parliamentary declarations, literally, hot air, Hallam of all people knows full well it came to naught. For if this ‘declaration’ had led to meaningful action, the ‘Burning Pink’ party would not have felt the need to follow up in February 2021 with a direct campaign in Brighton and another student hotbed (Cambridge) that also petered out[88]. Tellingly, Hallam only mentions that declaration, but not XR’s abject failure in the other two areas. Instead, he boasts of getting “200,000 people” joined up, and XR being “named the number one global influencer on the climate in 2019”[89]. Now, mobilising such numbers to engage in mass direction is impressive, but does not negate the fact that fundamentally this ‘Rupture’ was merely a transient ripple, and being named a “number one global influencer” by the corporate media is different from actually being one.

This episode highlights what Hallam is good at: getting ‘brand recognition’ for campaigns, and media coverage. I freely concede he knows “how to scale rapid organisational growth”[90] of such single issue campaigns as XR and Just Stop Oil.  No reason to doubt his claim that both XR and JSO ended up with “over 100”[91] full time staff each but gainful employment for his clique is different from achieving success. However, it is not at all certain such methods are applicable to political parties anyway. For two reasons, especially relevant to the YP project. Firstly, those attracted to XR, while certainly some of the type we want YP to recruit, are not representative of the full range YP needs to sink roots and attain success. An academic study published in 2020 found that “around 85 per cent of those who took part in the action in London in 2019 had a degree, and a third had a postgraduate qualification. Two thirds identified themselves as middle class. A high proportion were self-employed, part-time workers, or students. Three-quarters of those who were charged with offences lived below the Severn-Wash line traditionally separating the north and south of England. XR activists were mostly non-metropolitan. A third of those who appeared in court were from the West Country with hotspots in Stroud, Totnes and Frome, whereas just 6 per cent of those who appeared in court after the protests were from Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Swansea and Cardiff combined. More women than men were present in both the major 2019 demonstrations (64.5 per cent in April, and 56.8 per cent in October)”[92]. While laudable so many women were involved, nonetheless that so few activists were from urban areas or indeed the North, and so many university-educated, illustrates what worked with XR might not with YP. And the second reason for being dubious about the applicability of XR tactics to YP is that the very disruptive methods that secured XR/JSO media attention, while appealing to a minority of people (often students) do not entice many others, and may indeed antagonise them. For parties, media coverage/brand recognition needs coupling with a viable strategy and credible vision. But as already seen, those last two are not Hallam’s forte. There is also the little matter that XR was not intrinsically anti-capitalist like YP has to be, thus attracted corporate donations in a way that should be anathema to YP[93]. As for XR, in late 2022 they stated “despite the blaring alarm on the climate and ecological emergency ringing loud and clear, very little has changed. Emissions continue to rise and our planet is dying at an accelerated rate…As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic”[94]. They have indeed massively scaled down their actions since. None of this should detract from the excellent work XR has done in raising climate awareness but is not as such a copper-plated guarantee of success, or anything approaching it. As usual, with practised dexterity Hallam lists campaigns nothing to do with him: e.g. Syriza/Bernie Sanders/the Corbyn Project/Momentum[95] as though they in some way support his ideas, but sadly all failed anyway.

There is of course a huge elephant missing from Hallam’s self-congratulatory account of the April 2019 XR mobilisation. By July 2020 XR UK publicised the fact he no longer held any formal role here[96] and on 20/11/20 XR distanced themselves from Hallam in a major way. As they explained, worth quoting at length for anybody believing Hallam is not a majorly disruptive element in any organisation naïve enough to give him house-room, including one he helped set up like XR, and even more one he hasn’t like YP to which he has already displayed no loyalty whatsover:

“Roger Hallam has exhibited behaviour that, regardless of his intentions, has led to significant damage to our movement. For example:

–In November 2019, after comments Roger Hallam made on the Holocaust, the Global Support Tech team witnessed mass account deactivations across its global services. The German team cited a particularly heavy fall in their membership base. This was the first time Global Support Tech had seen negative growth since our global communications platforms were deployed, with thousands of rebels leaving our platforms.

–Radiohead, a major donor in 2019, indicated they would no longer donate to XR, citing Roger Hallam’s comments.

–XR Switzerland and XR Germany both reported that other local environmental groups sought to distance themselves from XR after the comments, with local Fridays For Future groups seeking distance from XR at German protests and indicating that the Extinction Symbol was not welcome at actions.

–On more than one occasion in 2020, Roger Hallam “jokingly” suggested that leaders responsible for the climate and ecological emergency should be shot. Joke or not, these statements damaged our otherwise strong commitment to non-violence in the public eye and increased concerns about XR being classified as a terrorist organization.

–Roger Hallam helped set up “XR America”, which both complicated existing conflicts among rebels in the United States and created new ones. As a result, the Latin American XR movement dissociated itself from Global Support and has worked as a network of independent regional groups”[97].

It is also worth noting the XR tactic of encouraging mass arrests which Hallam pioneered was not one with which racial minorities sometimes brutalised by the police and criminal justice system generally were comfortable with. Thus, once he departed XR distanced itself from the tactic[98]. At the time, an XR UK spokesperson said of Hallam (implying his departure was involuntary) “He has been removed from the strategic decision making role he had in XR, partly because of involvement in things like Beyond Politics – which do not represent where XR are at. He is wedded to his own vision of what is needed and XR has grown up – it is focusing on movement building and being a part of a collective struggle with allied groups – not suggesting XR has the only answer and everyone else has ‘failed’, which is line Roger uses a lot”[99].

I have included much detail on Hallam and XR so YP members know exactly what damaged goods he is: better he be cut loose sooner than later: his attempt to divert YP funds to his own network the ideal opportunity. Hallam cannot have it both ways (but would like to)—getting access to the YP High Command on the basis of XR activity and similar, while concealing the fact he is a proven disruptive influence in such campaigns ultimately. Hopefully that will now not be possible. One thing is certain: Hallam will not go quietly, illustrated by his January 2021 promise to go on hunger strike (FFS) protesting at perceived slights by XR[100]. No doubt Gabriel Pogrund and toads like the BBC’s Chris Mason will have his number on speed dial, if they haven’t already…..

The second ‘Rupture’ is a successful rent strike he claims to have organised in London: “I worked on the design for a rent strike..we decided to focus on one single housing block…..In April the landlord agreed to a rent reduction. We won”[101]. Unusually, in the book Hallam is rather coy about where exactly. In one sense, no surprise, for it involved students at University College London (UCL). Students by definition are a more cohesive and potentially rebellious body than many other groups. Therefore, such an example is not as impressive as a rent strike on a council estate. By using the word ‘block’ and not specifying the type of location, Hallam probably hopes readers will think it was on such an estate: which usually have tower ‘blocks’. Another reason might be this: as reported in a very thoughtful series of articles on the anarchist site lib.com concerning XR strategy, those organising that rent strike (UCL Cut the Rent) stated Hallam “was removed from our campaign long before the successful UCL rent strikes due to his actions jeopardising the campaign and activists involved. He also received £2,000 for research he did around our campaign, none of which made its way to us, even when funds were desperately needed”[102]. I cannot comment on the veracity of this claim, but note Hallam is uncharacteristically coy here when blowing his own trumpet at full blast seems the normal M.O.

The third ‘Rupture’ was Hallam and co-defendants disrupting court proceedings when tried in 2024 for ‘conspiracy’ to blockade the M25 as part of a 2022 Just Stop Oil campaign. However, commendable as their court antics (and the planned action) may have been, that “we all ended up in prison for the rest of the case. After the verdict we were given sentences of four and five years, the longest ever given for nonviolent civil disobedience”[103] hardly indicates success. Thankfully, many public figures and the public objected, and all sentences reduced on appeal, but the point still stands[104].

JUST A POLITICAL PYRAMID SELLER?

The charitable view would be that Hallam is a political pyramid seller. Given  his previous campaigns (product launches) had fizzled out, and having a long term link with Schneider/the Peace & Justice Project dating back to 2022 at least[105], it cannot have escaped Hallam’s attention that five independent MP’s, including Corbyn, were elected in July 2024, a phenomenon unprecedented in modern times. Thus indicating there was/is political space. As Hallam put it in August 2025 “I am in service to the Corbyn-Sultana project. I have been part of an informal network of people who have been on the edge of that for a year or so”[106]. Like any good entrepreneur, Hallam is always looking out for new products, and when from his prison cell he espied rapid Your Party growth, despite being no Leftist/socialist, no doubt thought YP an ideal vehicle into which he could/can insert from “within the climate/assembly/radical democracy spaces…around 300-500 people who would be ready to create a training infrastructure”[107]. Some of these, I presume, are among the 200 XR/JSO full-timers whose funding has dried up recently. In time-honoured NGO/Corporate fashion, these trainers will train further trainers. The aim is to end up with two part or full-time organisers for each of 140 areas who will organise door-knocking and assemblies…quickly creating “an authority structure in each area…it’s what the donations should be used for—to pay people to do a proper job…this system then can consolidate around set training programmes and certification processes”[108] and so on. Indeed, the main body of the book ends with reference to “training and certification processes”[109], and his 23/9 Linkedin post similarly.

As Francis Walsingham said, the best way to conceal a secret is in plain view, So here we have it. Hallam wants to import, en masse, people loyal to him to undertake paid jobs that will involve ‘educating’ seasoned activists/new recruits in how to interact with the public. Now, there is a place for political training, and friends who underwent the Bernie Sanders training used by Labour in 2017 tell me it was extremely useful in terms of engendering positive interactions with members of the public, even hostile ones, when canvassing. However, as I understand Hallam’s conception of door-knocking, this method of cold calling has never been tried before by the campaigns he has been involved in, save the student rent strike, and even his role there is disputed. I do not dispute, as Megan Kenyon records, that “XR made heavy use of citizens assemblies—a form of deliberative democracy in which a random yet representative group of people are brought together to discuss an issue”[110]. However, participants in such assemblies will have been drawn from the pool of those already committed to what many might see as a niche cause. This is just not the same as recruiting random members of the public to such assemblies: apples and pears. Let’s get real. Rightly or wrongly, unless concerning a very tangible local issue, random door-knockers outside election times (and sometimes even then) are very likely to be met with polite indifference or an injunction to go forth and multiply. To my knowledge XR/JSO etc. have not cold-called members of the public (street stalls don’t count) unless you include confronting aggrieved and inconvenienced motorists. Rather, those campaigns relied on media and online publicity. It is one thing to ask open ended questions, and genuinely listen to responses, but having no structured policy offer is a recipe not just for chaos but possibly worse. To be exact, June 2025’s MRP poll showed 38% of voters (60% of Tories/83% of Reform) regard immigration and border control as among their most important issues[111]. Given Hallam abjures policy discussion as unimportant, what if YP-sponsored assemblies produce racist responses on these issues? Are they then taken forward by YP? Hallam deflects criticism on this score by saying of those concerned with small boat crossings, “you put them into an assembly, and they’ll go ‘Oh yeah’. Well obviously it’s a problem with the rich and we should tax the rich”[112]. I hope so but certainly don’t think it obvious.

On the other hand–the uncharitable view–is that YP trying such an unproven strategy as Hallam advocates (as opposed to positive aspects from the Bernie Sanders methodology) would be a grave mistake. While not necessarily imputing malign motives to Hallam, if one were devising a strategy to ensure YP failure, his ideas as a whole (including sortition) would be near the top of any list, as too the proliferation of failed organisations and burnt-out activists his career is surely littered with. And please don’t tell me Hallam couldn’t be dodgy because of jail time: after all Freddie Scappaticci was inside between 1971 and 1974. I have not come to any firm conclusions about Hallam on this score, other than to conclude his proposed YP strategy is totally unproven and likely disastrous. In that sense, Hallam’s real motivation is neither here nor there.

An unwelcome contrast between Hallam and Jeremy Corbyn suggests itself. Whereas the latter was unjustly monstered with baseless allegations he is anti-semitic[113], a hostile media–should Hallam remain involved in YP–will not have to spend long looking for political skeletons in his closet. For example, his 2021 admission reported in the Daily Mirror and Independent that yes he would prevent an ambulance taking a dying person to hospital during a direct action event[114]. While XR rightly distanced themselves from this misanthropic pigswill the next day, the damage had been done, and would be again[115]. That’s a YP Health policy launch torpedoed straight away. I can provide more instances (the XR Press Releases quoted above do so) but you get my drift.

You have been warned. Should Hallam deign to respond to my critique, he is welcome. Might be fun!

Far more pertinent and useful (as usual) is Zarah Sultana’s view that we need “a major campaigning presence across the country. We don’t just want electoralism – we want a project that’s tied in to tenant’s unions, labour organising, the fight to defend the NHS from privatisation and the Palestine solidarity movement”[116].

GRASS ROOTS WORK THE KEY

There is no substitute for work on the ground rebuilding shattered working class institutions. The validity of such is ironically borne out by Lewis Bassett’s attack on the idea. As he puts it (after pouring gentle scorn on previous attempts to prioritise such) “it’s far from clear that a mass of Britons are calling out for food coop committees and socialist ping pong”. Bassett may regard it as irrelevant but the leap from thirty-five food banks in 2010 to circa 2,800 now shows food is a real issue no radical party can ignore. Has Bassett forgotten already how during Covid lockdown the real bedrock of society was revealed as including supermarket workers and all in the food chain? He counterposes to grass-roots work the campaign for Brexit which showed that “movements, with or without their own grassroots institutions, could be directed at transformational goals”[117]. Not a very good example in itself, as the lack of a mobilised movement meant those who supported Brexit from the Left (like me) definitely didn’t get the transformation we wanted[118]. More importantly, as Joe Todd has argued, “Winning an election and forming a government will not be enough. Implementing a socialist programme – controls on capital, widespread nationalisation, a fundamental transfer of wealth to the working class – will kick off huge opposition from business, foreign governments and the repressive arms of the state. There’s no point winning an election if we aren’t powerful enough to fight back. And our power base will be with the people. In militant rank and file trade unions, tenants and community unions, politicised community institutions and explosive social movements”[119]. A purely electoral approach is worse than useless when confronting determined ruling class opposition: and any programme not eliciting such a response hardly worth supporting. The Left needs mass popular mobilisation in a way the right does not, and foundations have to be laid on the ground/in the movements/on the streets. No other way. Todd has useful fleshed-out strategic ideas worth considering: building trust in the party, recomposing party membership, energising local organising by connecting it to a national project, and finally bringing unique resources to base building[120].

CONCLUSION

While the above has been critical of YP’s nascent strategic approach, it must be said in terms of potential openness to strategic discourse YP is way ahead of anything else on the Left. While I disagree in many respects with Schneider’s strategic output to date such disagreements may well lessen with elucidation especially as regards detail on both constituencies and how to counter opposition: a reply welcome from him and indeed others: email nfbmagazine@yahoo.co.uk.  Schneider creditably name-checks and takes seriously contributions from the likes of Antonio Gramsci, Andre Gorz, Nicos Poulantzas, Leo Panitch, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, to which I would add Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Cornelius Castoriadis, Adriano Sofri, Ernest Mandel, my old Big Flame comrades[121], Grace Blakeley[122] James Meadway and Christine Berry/Joe Guinan[123]–from the Corbyn interlude but still active–to name but a few. That Blakeley and Meadway are now in the Green Party is not a problem but an opportunity. The ‘four futures’ Schneider sketches at the end of ‘Our Bloc’ are thought-provoking, indicating flexibility and taking scenario-planning seriously. The likes of Max Shanly Archie Woodrow and especially Joe Todd bring fresh thinking to the mix: and we need it. The latter’s refrain, that “the new party must do more than win elections”, scenario planning for 2034 referencing both the failed 1981 Mitterand government in France, and the Allende period in Chile are, along with the equally important lessons to be learnt from Syriza’s radical phase in Greece pre-referendum, all areas of the political pitch YP should be active in[124]. The Second International split as a result of tension between being active in the here and now and attaining long-term goals. The current crisis of capitalism and climate is such that we cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. In the current situation, YP could do far worse than set up a scenario planning element, just as John McDonnell did in the Corbyn era[125]. I would be happy to help.

There is a lot more to be said about YP structures and processes, and will be elsewhere, but a few immediate points

1. Hallam and his coterie, by attempting to blatantly bypass/subvert YP procedures and siphon off finance that should go to YP directly, must surely have placed in jeopardy their formal involvement in YP. They have probably got away with it this time, but are definitely the ‘enemy within’ who need to be watched very carefully.
2. Money already siphoned off needs to be transferred to YP and no more diverted: and this includes from the whole alphabet soup of ‘Umbrella’ organisations.
3. Serious consideration needs to be given as to whether the door-knocking strategy advanced by Hallam is viable, and if not (as I believe) what to replace it with.
4. James Schneider needs to make it clear where he stands, and while it might be painful in various ways, commit to YP not the Hallam empire.
5. A serious (I hasten to add unpaid) strategy group should be set up, to feed into YP decision-makers. First two items on the agenda: the books by Schneider and Hallam.

We welcome comments on the above article, critical and otherwise: contact in the first instance nfbmagazine@yahoo.co.uk. It is just the start 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 D/H/P/V for stellar assistance, but the above text is ultimately down to me. L

[1] Whose party is it anyway? | Prometheus 9/9/25 (Archie Woodrow)

[2]   https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1969845526700106143?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[3] James Schneider (@schneiderhome) / X 23/9/25

[4] Act now to make Your Party democratic! | Chuffed | Non-profit charity and social enterprise fundraising 23/9/25

[5] What Roger Hallam learned in prison – New Statesman 21/8/25 (Megan Kenyon)

[6] Britain Can Have Its Own Mamdani. First It Must Move on From Corbyn | Novara Media 25/6/25 (James Meadway)

[7] Novara FM: The New Party, Beyo…–Novara Media – Apple Podcasts 27/5/25

[8] Whose party is it anyway? | Prometheus 9/9/25 (Archie Woodrow) links to it

[9] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.88

[10] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.87

[11] See ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ James Schneider Verso 2022 £8.99 reviewed by Larry O’Hara (published in Labour Briefing November 2022) – Notes From The Borderland: and then read the book!

[12] CONTRA EX MACHINA: AI & OTHER VIRTUAL PERILS by Verona Silenda (extract from NFB magazine issue 12) – Notes From The Borderland

[13] More on the New Left – The NLR Schneider Interview Tim Pendry Sub-Stack 28/8/25

[14 Chartist September/October 2025 p.16 (Don Flynn)

[15] (2) The Last Comment on the Left – The NLR Sultana Interview Tim Pendry 5/9/25

[16] Hard Rain Books 2025

[17] Roger Hallam ‘Your Party: Grasping The Enormity of the Moment’ Hard Rain Books August 2025 p.3

[18] Ben Timberley@BTimberley X 26/8/25, also see Join the Umbrella Revolution – Action Network which acknowledges JSO sponsorship (accessed 23/9/25)

[19] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.33

[20] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.83

[21] About – Extinction Rebellion UK accessed 18/9/25

[22] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.49/53/55/67

[23] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.39/40/43

[24] https://www.edmundgriffiths.com/newpargetsor.html: published 15/8/25

[25] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.51/72/73

[26] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[27] And of course it was Left SRs (plus Trotsky) who provided the personnel to storm the Winter Place

[28] How We Win: The Movements | Novara Media (James Schneider) 15/3/21

[29] Amazon.co.uk : beating the fascists

[30] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.42

[31] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ Verso 2022 p.59. On the policy see Ann Pettifor ‘The Case For The Green New Deal’ Verso 2019, and ‘Green Socialist New Deal’ Green Left 2022

[32] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.84

[33] Party like it’s 1900? | Counterfire John Rees 27.7.25

[34] The Times 29/7/25 (Laurence Sleator)

[35] Andrew Murray, Force of Opposition — Sidecar 6/8/25

[36] Andrew Murray ‘Is Socialism Possible in Britain?’ Verso 2022  p.214-5

[37] Hallam op. cit. p.26

[38] Hallam op. cit. p.37

[39] Hallam op. cit. p.80

[40] More on the New Left – The NLR Schneider Interview Tim Pendry Sub-Stack 28/8/25

[41] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.2-3

[42] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[43] About – Revolution in the 21st Century (last accessed 23/9/25)

[44] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.81

[45] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.82

[46] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.86

[47] Simon Hannah ‘Reclaiming The Future: A Beginner’s Guide To Planning The Economy’ Pluto 2024

[48] Zarah Sultana, The Alternative — Sidecar  17/8/25

[49] Chartist September/October 2025 p.16-17 (Don Flynn)

[50] Carl Boggs ‘Revolutionary Process, Political Strategy & The Dilemma of Power’ Theory & Society Volume 4 #3 Autumn 1977 p.359-93

[51] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.35

[52] Andre Gorz ‘Socialism & Revolution’ [1973] 1975 edition Allen Lane p.137

[53] For an admirable summary of how moves towards ‘Popular Power’ in Chile threatened the bourgeoisie, see Gabriel Smirnow ‘The Revolution Disarmed: Chile 1970-1973’ Monthly Review Press (New York) 1979 p.81-100. Also crucial for understanding popular power is the 1974 Big Flame pamphlet ‘Chile Si!’.

[54] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.80

[55] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.7

[56] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.8

[57] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[l58] Andrew Murray, Force of Opposition — Sidecar 6/8/25

[59] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.5

[60] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.38

[61] European Election 2019: UK results in maps and charts – BBC News

[62] See for example John Holloway and Sol Picciotto (ed) ‘State & Capital—A Marxist Debate’ Edward Arnold 1978

[63] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.54

[64] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.58

[65] hrw.org/report/2014/08/12/all-according-plan/raba-massacre-and-mass-killings-protesters-egypt

[66] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.14-15

[67] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[68] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[69] James Schneider, Building the Party — Sidecar 25/7/25

[70] James Schneider ‘Our Bloc: How We Win’ p.58, also Chantal Mouffe ‘For A Left Populism’ Verso 2019

[71] Socialist Zohran Mamdani could be New York’s next mayor. This is what the western left could learn from him | Owen Jones | The Guardian 23/6/25

[72] radicalthinktank – Radical Think Tank 6/10/16

[73] Roger Hallam ‘Common Sense For the 21^st Century’ 15/4/19 p.6 (available at rogerhallam.com)

[74] https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=157851305844936&id=100588138237920 21/7/20

[75] Further clarity on XRUK and the Beyond Politics party – Extinction Rebellion UK 25/7/20

[76] Burning Pink demands Brighton rebels against government | The Argus 28/1/21

[77] Microsoft Word – BHCC 2020-21 SoA FINAL 29-09-21.docx (Note 16)

[78] A Primer on Reform and Revolution: An Open Letter to Green Party Members 3/7/24

[79] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100538844

[80] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-structural-determinism/

[81] A Primer on Reform and Revolution: An Open Letter to Green Party Members 3/7/24

[82] Just Stop Oil – Just Stop Oil last accessed 2/9/25

[83] (3) Post | Feed | LinkedIn 23/9/25

[84] About – Revolution in the 21st Century (last accessed 23/9/25)

[85] About – Revolution in the 21st Century (last accessed 23/9/25)

[86] The Citizens’ Assembly Behind The Irish Abortion Referendum | Involve 30/5/18

[87] About – Revolution in the 21st Century (last accessed 23/9/25)

[88] https://web.archive.org/web/20210212141945/https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/what-can-burning-pink-ultimatum-achieve-that-extinction-rebellion-hasn-t-9156394/

[89] Roger Hallam ‘Your Party: Grasping The Enormity of the Moment’ p.9

[90] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.58

[91] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.59

[92] Extinction Rebellion’s activists more likely to be new to protesting, study shows | Aston University 15/7/20

[93] https://web.archive.org/web/20191019174849/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/10/extinction-rebellion-funded-charity-set-one-britains-richest/ and also for example
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2019/09/06/getty-heiress-donates-500000-fund-backs-extinction-rebellion/

[94] WE QUIT – Extinction Rebellion UK 22/12/22 (last accessed 23/9/25)

[95] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.59

[96] Further clarity on XRUK and the Beyond Politics party – Extinction Rebellion UK 25/7/20

[97] XR Global support statement on Roger Hallam 20/11/20

[98] Statement on Extinction Rebellion’s relationship with the police – Extinction Rebellion UK 1/7/20

[99] Quoted in How XR’s Controversial Co-Founder Fell Out With the Group He Created 24/9/20 (Ben Charlie Smoke)

[100] Clarification by XR Global Support on Separation from Roger Hallam 23/1/21

[101] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.9-10

[102] Extinction Rebellion: Not the Struggle we Need, Pt. 2 | libcom.org 31/10/19

[103] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.12

[104] Judge Christopher Hehir’s sentencing remarks (which are full of sententious establishment bluster) are here: judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf see also on the reduced sentences  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/just-stop-oil-protesters-jail-sentences-shortened-after-appeal

[105] Peace & Justice Project and Just Stop Oil announce coalition, London day of action – Peace & Justice 16/6/22

[106] What Roger Hallam learned in prison – New Statesman 21/8/25 (Megan Kenyon)

[107] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.72

[108] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.73

[109] Roger Hallam op. cit. p.83

[110] What Roger Hallam learned in prison – New Statesman 21/8/25 (Megan Kenyon)

[111] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20250625.html

[112] What Roger Hallam learned in prison – New Statesman 21/8/25 (Megan Kenyon)

[113] See Asa Winstanley ‘Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn’ OR Books New York 2023 on this

[114] Extinction Rebellion founder admits he would block ambulance carrying dying patient – The Mirror 4/10/21 (Ryan Fahey). Also https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/climate/ambulance-roger-hallam-extinction-rebellion-v6cfe3668

[115] https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2021/10/05/5th-october-statement/–“Extinction Rebellion has a strict policy of letting ambulances through our nonviolent protests. This is a matter of public record. Our policy is designed into every XR action, and we move aside for flashing lights and sirens – ambulances, fire engines, paramedics. Comments made yesterday by Roger Hallam were made in his own capacity, about a hypothetical scenario, not on behalf of Extinction Rebellion”.

[116] Zarah Sultana, The Alternative — Sidecar  17/8/25

[117] Forget Movement-Building – the New Party Should Be the Ukip of the Left | Novara Media 8/9/25 (Lewis Bassett)

[118] THE GREEN LEFT CASE FOR BREXIT – Notes From The Borderland

[119] A four point plan for a Democratic Socialist Party | Prometheus 21/5/25 (Joe Todd)

[120] A four point plan for a Democratic Socialist Party | Prometheus 21/5/25 (Joe Todd)

[121] ‘Seizing The Power’: A Still-Relevant 1979 Big Flame Document on Revolutionary Strategy – Notes From The Borderland

[122] Grace Blakeley ‘Stolen: How to Save The World From Financialisation’ Repeater Books 2019

[123] Christine Berry & Joe Guinan ‘People Get Ready! Preparing for a Corbyn Government’ OR Books 2019

[124] The New Party Must Do More Than Win Elections | Novara Media 15/7/25 (Joe Todd)

[125] Richard Barbrook, th me man war-gaming a Corbyn government New Statesman (George Eaton) 18/7/18

About The Author

long-suffering Everton FC supporter (FTRS), likes cats, parapolitics. Defintely on the Left, but with a Green tinge. For reference I have a PhD in Politics but don’t hold that against me. Could say more but it’s not about me really is it?

See author's posts