A moment of dissent at a Your Party rally shows how the former Labour leader is being outflanked by both Zack Polanski’s Greens and his own colleague Zarah Sultana
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.
They are MPs, not YP MPs, all 6 are independents in parliament. As YP has not fully formed, it has never selected MPs. And as yet absolutely no ability or authority to do so exists within the party procedures. They are just active members at best.
A party that appoints MPs without membership approval is a circle jerk with no interest in democracy. That is the whole point of the movement that set up YP.
Setting up a member led party movement, then allowing some nebulous group of self-appointed leaders to appoint MPs before it’s even formed. Would def be those MPs wanking each other as you suggest.
Maybe look at what the actual party movement stands for. Rather then listening to media bollocks.
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.
Is it not significant that of its 6 original MPs it’s sued one and another quit? A party is just a circlejerk without MPs.
They are MPs, not YP MPs, all 6 are independents in parliament. As YP has not fully formed, it has never selected MPs. And as yet absolutely no ability or authority to do so exists within the party procedures. They are just active members at best.
A party that appoints MPs without membership approval is a circle jerk with no interest in democracy. That is the whole point of the movement that set up YP.
Setting up a member led party movement, then allowing some nebulous group of self-appointed leaders to appoint MPs before it’s even formed. Would def be those MPs wanking each other as you suggest.
Maybe look at what the actual party movement stands for. Rather then listening to media bollocks.