I BECAME politically active at school, joining the short-lived but lively National Union of School Students aged 16. So while my views evolved over time, it’s fair to say that I’ve been on the left for over half a century. Having stuck with Labour through good and bad times, including 20 years as a local councillor and 30 months as MP for Kensington, I resigned 40 years’ membership in April 2023.

So I was delighted and enthusiastic when the call went out in July to join a new left party, and signed up in support along with 800,000 others. I’m in a group of Independent Socialist Councillors, a nationwide group of around 200, some of whom belong to larger council groups, so its reach is potentially double that.

Members of the group, that I currently chair, represent the full spectrum of views of events over the past few months. Some are absolutely wedded to the prospects of Your Party led by one particular MP, some are behind the co-leadership “offer” of July which mobilised the 800,000 sign-ups, others who have already set up local indie parties want and expect a full affiliation offer “like the Co-op” — not the two years proposed in the founding documents.

Others are disillusioned and disappointed and want to scream into pillows.

In an ideal world, good socialists would be able to “disagree well.” My academic background expects and demands that; robust debate without name-calling and bullying. The world however is far from ideal and there have been extensive and unflattering leaks and other bad faith conduct, in our group and in the self-appointed “organising committee” that are reminiscent of the fractious Labour Party meetings I hoped I’d left behind.

It would of course have been better if the wrangling between the two potential leadership candidates had been carried out behind closed doors, but given that every move has been comprehensively “tweaked” then leaked, we have been exposed to what could have been negotiation but which turned out to be a situation where, as Jeremy Corbyn put it with his usual courtesy, “none of us have covered ourselves in glory.”

This is the situation as I see it from what I have gathered, presented here in good faith:

• On July 3 the self-appointed “organising committee” held a vote to decide on the leadership of the founding of the new party. The vote was 17-0 in favour of co-leadership of the process, with notable abstentions. Zarah Sultana immediately publicised this decision, attracting the 800,000 sign-ups. Jeremy and his team did not accept the vote.
• On July 24 a smaller faction of the “organising committee” launched Your Party without reference to the wider group, appointing the Independent Alliance MPs as the de facto NEC.
• Memorandum of Understanding Operations Ltd (MoU), had been set up in April in co-operation with Jeremy, with Andrew Feinstein, Jamie Driscoll and Beth Winter as directors. When it was set up the plan was for the new party to offer support for councillors facing election in 2026, after which there would be a conference to decide how to go forward. The directors of MoU were not consulted or informed about the July 24 launch, but the related bank account was used for donations.
• Zarah’s membership launch of September 18 also relied on MoU as recipient of donations and as data owner of the membership, but MoU directors again were not informed.
• After complex and extensive legal advice, negotiations were opened to hand over ownership and control of MoU to Your Party.
• Your Party had asked MoU directors to hand over the funds, but retain liabilities for refunds. The liabilities issue is key, as anyone who cancelled their payment and set up a dispute with their card provider would have incurred a cost of £50 to MoU. The directors would be liable.
• Legal advice taken suggested the way out of this impasse would be for one of the Your Party leaders to take ownership of MoU. Having reviewed all the options, Zarah agreed to this, and has invited Jeremy to join her as co-owner and director, so that “all MoU resources [can] be used for the founding and operation of Your Party as was always intended.” The three directors, Andrew Feinstein, Jamie Driscoll and Beth Winter have now resigned.

This is my understanding of what has happened. There will be other narratives.

At the time of writing, the morning of Thursday October 30, we await developments by the hour. Like most lifelong socialists I desperately want Your Party to prevail and succeed; the response to Zarah’s proposal will be hugely consequential.

More than anything the technocrats and political advisers involved on all sides must focus, please, on how a struggling new movement can address the numerous crises that both Jeremy and Zarah are so clearly focused on.

We need a well organised, united and positive new party working as one. There are huge and consequential economic and financial issues coming down the line, and we need hope and positivity to drive the work that needs to be done to overturn the desperation so many of us feel.

As Saint Francis de Sales told us: “Flowers often grow more beautifully on dung-hills than in gardens that look beautifully kept.”