You must log in or # to comment.
Oh my god, they still haven’t chosen a name? I feel like they left a gap and created room for Reform to stand up in - just because so many people were waiting for a third party, and Your Party can’t even get it together enough to pick a name.
Why the hell is this so confusing to people.
The party is a democratic one run by the members. As such everything about it is down to members approval.
Unlike Labour who have votes at conference but totally ignore the will of it’s members.
your Party constitution will state “Conference Is sovereign”. At least after the members accept the founding docs it will.
The Same goes for the name. It has not failed to select a name. It’s whole plan is to elect the name in the conference on Nov 29-30th.
This stupid idea that the party is slow or disorganised. Is entirely right wing media bullshit. The party has existed for less then 2 months.
No other party in history has gone from vague idea to fully formed in that time. Every single party in history has huge disagreements and takes time to organise process.
Edit: What YP is trying to do is totally unique. Also very nessesery given how little control the public has over any other UK political party.
Forming a democratic party requires strong and agreed rules that both ensure principles while allowing membership to have full control over the leadership.
Everything happening within the party is down to ensuring this happens. And is happening very effectively.
Not disorganised? They haven’t yet got a name, a platform or a leader, but they’ve skipped to the infighting and legal action.
Clearly an opinion with 0 analysis of the parties goals.
Just listening to crap pushed by the media.
While totally ignoring much worse and less reasoned arguments and fights within every other party in the UK.
“But we have great policies” says the Ferrets Scrapping in a Bag Party
Always seen far rage as more of a bag of frogs then ferrets. But fair enough. It’s Def a valid point that folks seem to pay very little attention to the internal fighting within reform. Dispite it’s insane and unique ltd by shares structure meaning the leader literally is a CEO and has full control and responsibility for all corporate actions.
Unlike every other political parties LTD by garrentee structure.
As for the Tories. Were you asleep for the 14 years of constant infighting and policy turnarounds they saw. Or just following the lesser reports in mainstream media covering them.
As for labour. Yeah as an ex member, even the media is more then happy to share any row within their party over the last 100 years. But for fuck sake you have to be blind to suggest YP has not managed it’s own short and motivated argument quicker and more uniformly then labour ever has.
But here are the facts from inside YP. From an old folk who has watched a few parties from. (Look back at the 80s LIbralDems history of multiple mini parties. )
As for the history of arguments in the greens. Yeah don’t make me laugh. Their is a reason it’s taken them decades to gain a sizable support. Thier internal history is a nightmare.
All movements have a period where they move from an idea to a formalised party. And every single party in history has faced attempts to take control at that point. Because that is the point where a parties founding docs are most up to be rewritten and manipulated,
The whole idea that a single argument settled withing a week. When a party is still forming. Is in anyway a measure of the parties competence. Is utter rubbish and nothing more then a right wing media wet dream. With no basis in reality at all.
The culture surrounding the party has become dominated by persistent infighting, factional competition and a struggle for power, position and influence rather than a shared commitment to the common good.
Instead of openness, cooperation and outward focus, the environment has too often felt toxic, exclusionary and deeply disheartening.
- Adnan Hussain MP, today announcing his resignation from Your Party.
A single argument, settled within a week?
Despite those arguments being very much open and a part of national news from day one. His view that it lacks openness seems based on some new fangled view of open no one else follows.
And your only evidence being one independent MP who is no more than an active member of the party. That clearly disagreed with the remaining sources standing with the party. And decided leaving was his only way to effect a losing argument.
The more logical conclusion is Adnan Hussain was unwilling to work with the rest of the party.
Yes, it’s one argument the leaders of both sides of the debate worked together. And one member that happened to be an MP and have no leadership role in the party ( as no one currently does. Even Corbyn is no more than an acting figurehead for the electoral commission rules until after conference). Left after the debate was settled by other active members.
As I keep saying. The media view of YP is totally false and ignores every other party, having much worse arguments all the time. Anyone who wants to can look into the causes and arguments of the debate. It really takes no effort to see it is to be expected given the current stage and risk involved in setting up any party from an idealistic movement. And no different to the history of every other party in the UK.
Dose the party have a few issues. Of course, it’s 2 Months old and attempting a first time set up of a very complex structure. But to claim it is failing is totally failinbg to look at any of the internals or plans of the party. Because even with such debates. Everything promissed is happening on schedule. And the actors involved are in no way managing or in most cases even trying to take control while the membership is built.
