logo
Despite the chaos of its launch, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party has struck a nerve

Despite the chaos of its launch, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party has struck a nerve

The Guardian5 days ago
Less than a month into its existence, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new leftwing party is already widely seen as a mess. Its leadership, its launch schedule and even its name: all have caused inconclusive, semi-public rows. The opportunity provided by political novelty appears to be being wasted.
For the many journalists and politicians who always see the left as incompetent and naive, the stop-start, seemingly uncoordinated first weeks of Your Party, as it may or may not eventually be named, have felt like a gift – a summer silly season story after months of grim political acrimony. 'Thank Christ Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are here to give us a laugh,' wrote Sebastian Murphy in the Daily Express. 'Labour's loopy Left have bravely broken free of Starmer's stultification to bring us a political party that is easily the funniest thing since the anti-Brexit centrists Change UK.' Now largely forgotten, Change UK lasted 10 months after splitting from Labour in 2019.
For left-leaning Britons who've had enough of Labour's rightward shifts and intolerance of dissent, and have been hoping for a viable alternative, the new party's launch has been depressing. Why, in times which so obviously require a radical fightback, can't the left agree a clear way forward? Why is it still so dependent on Corbyn, who after 42 years in parliament can hardly be presented as a fresh figure? And where are the nimble strategists that the immensely difficult task of establishing a successful leftwing party is going to need?
Some of the answers to these questions, which British leftists often ask each other with despairing shrugs and eye-rolls, lie in socialism's struggles in this country since the 1980s. These have left the movement with gaps and imbalances, which are exposed whenever it tries to take the initiative.
Yet as well as considering these weaknesses, it's also important to acknowledge that, despite all the confusion and ridicule, Corbyn and Sultana's new party has struck a nerve. It says that more than 600,000 people have signed up on its rudimentary website for updates and information about how to get involved – almost as many people as the memberships of Labour, the Tories and Reform UK combined. In some of the most hostile coverage of the new party, there is a revealing note of alarm. 'Something has actually gone seriously wrong with British society,' wrote Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph, 'if a party such as this could poll at 18 per cent' – the proportion who told YouGov they would 'consider' voting for a new Corbyn-led party. 'It's a rebellion against the broken status quo.'
Superficially, this rebellion seems little different from the half dozen that have tried and failed to break Labour's left-of-centre monopoly over the past 30 years: Respect, Left Unity, the Workers party of Britain, the Socialist party, the Socialist Labour party, the London Socialist Alliance. Well-known leftists such as Arthur Scargill and George Galloway attempted to turn strong local power bases, personal charisma and leftwing credibility into something bigger, at times when Labour was alienating its more radical supporters. A few parliamentary and council seats were won, but rarely for long. The new parties were both too narrow – dominated by one person – and too broad – prone to ideological differences – to sustain their initial momentum. With their ageing figureheads and traditional leftwing sectarianism, the new parties did not seem new enough.
This time, the involvement of Sultana, one of the most digitally fluent young MPs, sends a different signal. So does the involvement of innovative and ambitious political operators, such as Momentum co-founder James Schneider, who helped make Corbyn's Labour leadership, at times, surprisingly dynamic and popular– despite it being widely written off, as the new party is now. Six years on from Corbynism's defeat, there is finally a movement, largely undetected by the mainstream media, of bright, youngish leftwing activists back into the political game.
And yet, as the frictions between Corbyn and Sultana have shown, it remains tricky to unite two leftwing generations, very different in age and levels of political patience – while also appealing more effectively to middle-aged Britons, who grew up under New Labour and often absorbed its centrist assumptions. These difficulties afflicted Corbyn's Labour leadership, and ultimately helped destroy it.
The British left has so often been excluded from power over the past 40 years that it frequently lacks the skills that experience of power can bring: building and sustaining coalitions, maintaining message discipline, creating political organisations that are representative without being too fractious. Truly leftwing British parties, in short, tend to be a bit rickety, yet they must stand up against our conservative political culture's strongest winds.
Then again, such deficiencies may matter less nowadays. The deep discontent and many crises left by 14 years of rightwing rule, impatience with Starmer's methodical but patchy reforms, and outrage at his government's Gaza evasions, mean that many voters are in an adventurous – or reckless – mood. A radical party with a highly divisive leader, thrown-together structure and frequent internal rows already exists, and it's called Reform. Its poll lead suggests that voters are less interested than journalists in party processes, and more interested in stories about what's wrong with Britain, compellingly told. Whether at rallies or on social media, Sultana and Corbyn are just as capable of this as Nigel Farage. A new poll shows that Reform voters strongly prefer Corbyn to Starmer, which suggests that the new party could take Reform votes.
Reform has more media backing than the new party ever will. Yet it's likely that rightwing journalists will keep giving the leftwing party publicity, and even some favourable coverage, in order to hurt Labour. So the new party will need to pull off a balancing act: keeping its personalities and factions happy, developing populist but not fantastical policies, and wounding the government without helping Farage into Downing Street.
Labour loyalists will say that a left divided is a left defeated. But if they truly believed that, Starmer's party and government would be much more pluralist. What these loyalists really think is that the left should only ever be divided on their terms. That entitled and coercive logic has now had consequences. A new leftwing party, risky and imperfect, could be here to stay. This time, it's possible that our politics will never be quite the same again.
Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK to bear transport costs of ‘one in, one out' asylum seeker deal with France
UK to bear transport costs of ‘one in, one out' asylum seeker deal with France

The Guardian

time8 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

UK to bear transport costs of ‘one in, one out' asylum seeker deal with France

The UK will pay the costs of transporting asylum seekers to and from France under Keir Starmer's 'one in, one out' deal with Emmanuel Macron, it has emerged. The deal will have to be renewed by 11 June next year, and can be ended at a month's notice by either side, documents made public by the government indicate. A copy of the agreement was released on Tuesday as the prime minister comes under increasing pressure to stop boats carrying asylum seekers from crossing the Channel. The deal will allow the UK to return one person who has entered the country by irregular means in return for taking someone in France whose claim for asylum in the UK is expected to have a greater chance of success. It has been trumpeted by ministers as a 'gamechanging' deal but Home Office sources said it will only apply to about 50 asylum seekers at first. 'All transport costs incurred in connection with readmission pursuant to this agreement shall be borne by the United Kingdom,' the documents state. They continue: 'Those accepted for admittance [from France] … shall be provided by the United Kingdom with transport from a designated place to the United Kingdom (at the cost of the United Kingdom).' If people have an outstanding claim for asylum, they cannot be removed, the deal says. France can reject a requested removal if it 'considers that an individual would be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Schengen states'. So far in 2025, 25,436 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel in small boats – a record for this point in the year since data began being collected in 2018. This is up 48% on this point last year (17,170) and 70% higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,994), according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office data. At least 10 people have died while attempting the journey this year, according to reports by French and UK authorities, but there is no official record of fatalities in the Channel.

News Corp warns Trump AI is eviscerating sales of The Art of the Deal
News Corp warns Trump AI is eviscerating sales of The Art of the Deal

The Guardian

time8 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

News Corp warns Trump AI is eviscerating sales of The Art of the Deal

News Corp is warning Donald Trump that AI is cannibalizing sales of his books, including The Art of the Deal. The company, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owns dozens of newspapers and TV channels around the world including the Wall Street Journal, the Times (in the UK), the Australian and the New York Post. News Corp also owns book publisher HarperCollins, which has published three of Trump's books, though his best-known title, The Art of the Deal, was published by Random House. Still, the company appeared keen to warn Trump about the impact AI is having on publishing. 'The AI age must cherish the value of intellectual property if we are collectively to realize our potential,' News Corp said in a statement with its fourth-quarter earnings report. 'Even the president of the United States is not immune to blatant theft. The president's books are still reporting healthy sales, but are being consumed by AI engines which profit from his thoughts by cannibalizing his concepts, thus undermining future sales of his books. 'Suddenly, The Art of the Deal has become The Art of the Steal.' Media outlets have sued AI companies, including OpenAI, operator of ChatGPT, for using their content to train AI models without permission. In May, a federal judge rejected OpenAI's request to dismiss a lawsuit from the New York Times over its usage of the newspaper's content. Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post sued Perplexity AI in October over similar copyright claims. News Corp's message to Trump also comes after the White House last month announced Trump's 'AI action plan' that would see the loosening of AI regulations that had been put in place under the Biden administration. In an earnings call Tuesday, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson said that the company is in the middle of 'advanced negotiations with several AI companies'. 'It's clear that many of them have come to recognize that the purchase of [intellectual property] is as important as the acquisition of semiconductors or the securing of stable energy sources,' he said, noting that it's a mix of 'wooing and suing'. 'We prefer the former, but we will never shy away from protecting our property rights,' he said. The warning comes at a tense moment between News Corp and the White House. Trump sued the Wall Street Journal after the newspaper published a report that the president had once sent Jeffrey Epstein an intimate birthday message that included a sexually suggestive drawing of a woman. Trump claimed that the report was false and amounted to libel. The newspaper has requested a judge dismiss the case. Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, was once friendly with Trump, though relations soured during the president's third presidential campaign. The company beat fourth-quarter expectations with Tuesday's earnings announcement, largely due to a rise in digital subscriptions from Dow Jones, which houses the company's business publications like the Wall Street Journal, Barron's and MarketWatch. On Monday, News Corp announced it will launch a sister tabloid to the New York Post in California, called the California Post, in early 2026.

Washington ambassador who quit after calling Trump ‘inept' says he was proved right
Washington ambassador who quit after calling Trump ‘inept' says he was proved right

Telegraph

time8 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Washington ambassador who quit after calling Trump ‘inept' says he was proved right

A former ambassador to the US who quit after calling Donald Trump's administration 'inept' in leaked private emails has said he was proved right. Lord Darroch resigned in 2019 after confidential cables criticising the US president's government were leaked to the media. The long-serving diplomat described Mr Trump's administration as 'dysfunctional', 'inept' and 'divided' in a series of emails from 2017. Mr Trump responded by calling Lord Darroch 'a very stupid guy' triggering a diplomatic row which eventually forced the British ambassador to step down from the post. Lord Darroch doubled down on his comments at an Edinburgh Fringe show on Tuesday, arguing that the subsequent chaos of Mr Trump's premiership proved he was 'right'. He told Ian Dale's All Talk show: 'If you're going to crash and burn on the basis of one piece of reporting that you've done, leaking, please God, make it a piece of reporting where all the predictions are right. 'I would say, if you read back that letter that was leaked, that was written after six months of Donald Trump and had a number of predictions about how the rest of his term would run, then you'd struggle to find anything that didn't turn out the way I had predicted it. 'So if that's the way to go out, it's better than the opposite.' Lord Darroch added that he had 'already' decided to retire when the row broke out. 'I was six months off finishing anyway and I had had an extraordinary, lucky career', he said. In an interview with BBC Newsnight in 2020, Lord Darroch said he knew his position was untenable when the emails became public but defended taking his plain-speaking approach. 'I never regret the terms in which I'd reported,' the former national security adviser said. 'I spent 40 years in the Foreign Office writing in these terms and people hitherto had thought it a strength and an asset. There is nothing unusual in reporting in clear and direct terms.' Speaking at Fringe, he added that it had in fact been Lord Cameron, who appointed him to the post in January 2016, who requested that he write in a more frank manner. He recalled the former prime minister saying: 'I'm fed up of reading all these letters to ambassadors which say, on the one hand, on the other hand, which are written in code. What you have to do is tell it like it is. Be clear and call out what you're seeing.' 'That letter, which was trying to give an accurate summary of how Trump's first six months had gone, was in part a response to Cameron saying tell it like it is. Don't write in code,' said Lord Darroch.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store