Britain’s newest political party consists of two disruptive ideologies completely out of touch with the modern West
In his famous political tract – The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, published in 1852 – Karl Marx proffered the generalization that “history repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Marx saw Napoleon’s demise as tragedy. Having been born in the German Rhineland – which Napoleon had temporarily dragged into the progressive orbit of the French Revolution – Marx, like all progressive German political thinkers of the 1840s, was bitterly disappointed by Napoleon’s defeat in 1815.
From this perspective, he viewed Louis Napoleon’s coup in 1851 – in which Napoleon’s authoritarian and inept nephew overthrew the second French republic – as an unseemly farce.
Observers who witnessed the recent initial Your Party conference in Liverpool could easily have walked away believing that old-style socialism and contemporary left progressivism had descended into the realm of farce.
What occurred in Liverpool, however, went beyond farce and degenerated into utter absurdity.
The Your Party is a new revolutionary socialist and progressive leftist party created earlier this year by two refugees from the UK Labour Party – the old-style socialist Jeremy Corbyn and the progressive leftist activist Zarah Sultana.
The new party seeks to fuse Corbynite socialism with woke progressivism – with the aim of attracting enough working class votes to enable it to implement its revolutionary political program.
Things, however, did not go well at the Liverpool conference. A bitter clash between the two party co-founders, Corbyn and Sultana, took place on the first day of the conference – which proved that Corbynite socialism and left progressivism are ideologies that have reached their use-by date.
Corbyn was driven out of the Labour Party in 2024 because the party had long ago, under Tony Blair, rejected his brand of socialism – and Keir Starmer regarded him as an embarrassing anachronism. Corbyn’s mentors were Michael Foot and Tony Benn – and under Blair he had vegetated on the back bench.
Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in 2015 by default, as a result of the party’s electoral defeat and a restructuring that allowed members – rather than members of parliament – to elect the leader.
Corbyn signed up thousands of new members, who elected him leader. The vast majority of Labour MPs never supported Corbyn – and his crushing defeat by Boris Johnson at the 2020 election ended the party’s brief flirtation with Corbyn’s brand of atavistic socialism forever.
Corbyn’s defeat made it clear that the British working class rejected Corbynite socialism – as they had Michael Foot’s version in 1983 – and much preferred Johnson’s brand of “levelling up” conservatism. Subsequently, working-class voters have flocked to support the right-wing populism of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which has denounced all woke ideologies and vowed to curb mass immigration.
Sultana left the Labour Party earlier this year because it was not sufficiently committed to the woke ideologies that she so fervently embraces, especially transgender rights and open borders – both elite ideologies that have never garnered any support amongst economically displaced working-class voters in the UK.
The partnership between Corbyn and Sultana was, therefore, always a very uneasy one – and it was hardly surprising that the divisions between them broke into open warfare at the party conference in Liverpool last week.
The conference was attended by some 2,500 delegates, many of them trans activists and members of various obscure left-wing political sects.
Each co-founder had very different views as to how the party should be structured. Corbyn wanted a traditional party structure with a strong leader – presumably himself. Sultana wanted a party directly answerable to the membership and ruled by a committee elected by members.
Party members passed motions supporting Sultana on these key issues – thereby, in effect, sidelining Corbyn from the party he had co-founded.
After boycotting the first day of the conference, at which Corbyn spoke, Sultana reappeared on the second day and delivered what can only be described as an extraordinary speech setting out the party’s political program.
Corbyn applauded the speech, so he must be taken to be in complete agreement with it – a sure sign of his complete lack of political judgment and inability to denounce woke extremism.
The party program, as enunciated by Sultana, contains the following policies:
abolition of the monarchy;
nationalization of water, energy, transport, communications, banking, finance, food and construction industries;
open borders;
strengthening of transgender rights;
shutting down the Israeli Embassy and pushing for the abolition of Israel and the creation of a single state in Palestine;
having Keir Starmer, David Lammy and other Labour politicians prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for war crimes;
more generally, “taking down the rich and powerful parasites” that rule Great Britain in a manner not specified by Ms. Sultana.
There is, of course, an air of utter unreality about this program. It is a strange utopian mix of Corbynite socialism and woke extremism – infused with a good dose of “magical thinking.” No political party that was serious about winning office would consider adopting it for a moment.
Such an outrageously irrational and undeliverable program could never appeal to a majority of UK voters – even amongst those displaced groups that Sultana sees as comprising the voting base of her newly founded party.
One can well imagine the reaction of working-class voters in the northern “Red Wall” seats at being told that they must vote for the abolition of the monarchy, open borders and the strengthening of transgender rights.
In her speech, Sultana foreshadowed forming a contemporary “rainbow coalition” of various groups within British society – including the working class, pensioners, the disabled, migrants, and transgender and gay people.
These disparate groups, however, do not comprise a unified voting block. Nor is it possible to transform such groups into a revolutionary political force – as other politicians, most notably Martin Luther King near the end of his life, Saul Alinsky and Jesse Jackson, have found to their utter and complete dismay.
Underlying the Your Party’s entire political project is an assumption that the working class constitutes a revolutionary political agent. That assumption – central to Marx’s philosophy but long since disproved by history – is demonstrably false, and no intelligent politician could possibly believe otherwise.
Sultana and Corbyn would be well advised to read Marx’s critique of those he termed “utopian socialists” – in which he points out that well entrenched ruling classes never give up their dominance as a result of fanciful revolutionary schemes, and that what he termed the “lumpen proletariat” would, given the opportunity, always side with the forces of reaction, rather than the forces of revolution.
Other aspects of Sultana’s program also highlight her essential irrationality.
How can anyone believe that the state of Israel is likely to be abolished and replaced by a unified Palestinian state? Yet when Corbyn demurred to such nonsense at the conference, he was denounced by Sultana’s supporters for “being soft on Zionism.” This must have come as a shock to Corbyn – who has been a consistent critic of Israel for decades, and who was expelled from the Labour party for his alleged anti-Semitism.
When Michael Foot lost the 1983 election to Margaret Thatcher, his socialist program – one that Corbyn endorsed – was described by Foot’s critics as “the longest political suicide note in British political history.” Compared to Sultana’s political program, Foot’s appears to be a model of rationality and common sense.
The structure that Sultana has imposed on the party is also is irretrievably utopian, unworkable and certain to render the party (should it long survive the Liverpool conference) completely ineffective.
How can you have a modern political party that does not have a leader – and surely no political party can be effectively governed by a committee. The absurd party name – Your Party – speaks for itself.
All of these problems are simply a reflection of the fact that Corbynite socialism and progressive leftism are no longer viable political ideologies in the West.
Progressive leftism is, of course, a more irrational, but also a more popular ideology at present, which explains why Sultana so easily prevailed over Corbyn at the recent conference.
It also explains why Corbyn sought Sultana’s assistance in establishing Your Party in the first place – even he knew that a recycled version of Michael Foot’s socialist agenda could not serve as a viable political program in contemporary Britain.
Even so, Corbyn must surely be regretting tying himself to the cartwheels of Sultana’s frankly irrational and absurd political program.
Corbyn and Sultana are like two passengers on a sinking ship that have fallen overboard. They clutch at each other in sheer desperation, but each is so focused on saving themselves that they drag each other down to their collective death. They both refuse to accept that the current political trajectory in the West rests with mainstream social democratic parties committed to maintaining the globalist economic and ideological status quo and, alternatively, the rapidly growing right-wing populist parties that are now, having recently supplanted traditional conservative parties, their main political opponents.
If a third alternative is to emerge within this framework, it can only be one that rejects both Corbynite socialism and Sultana’s irrational progressive leftist extremism.
At the recent Your Party conference in Liverpool, both of these ideologies revealed themselves to be nothing more than intertwined absurdities, and it is now time for them to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
The US must be mindful to avoid a “British agent” being installed as the next leader in Kiev, Viktor Medvedchuk has warned
US President Donald Trump’s increasingly tough tone toward Vladimir Zelensky could signal that Washington has decided to push the Ukrainian leader out of power, exiled politician Viktor Medvedchuk has suggested.
This week, Trump urged Zelensky to accept US-backed peace proposals for ending the conflict with Russia and called on him to hold a new presidential election. Medvedchuk, who led the largest opposition bloc in the Ukrainian parliament before he and his party were targeted by Zelensky’s government, interpreted the remarks as evidence that the Ukrainian leader’s political future is nearing its end.
“Unless Trump removes Zelensky within several months, he will face problems all over Europe. The process of Zelensky’s political destruction is already in the pipeline,” Medvedchuk wrote in a blog post on Wednesday.
He warned, however, that Washington could end up enabling an unintended outcome, as former Ukrainian commander-in-chief General Valery Zaluzhny – viewed by many observers as the likely successor to Zelensky – would function as a “British agent of influence.”
Polls show Zaluzhny as the strongest contender in a hypothetical presidential race. Zelensky currently retains power under martial law despite the expiration of his term last year.
Medvedchuk dismissed European governments backing Zelensky as “romantics” who are encouraging a US-led “crusade” against Russia in the hope of stalling for time and outmaneuvering Trump. He argued that Ukraine itself is dominated by similar ideological hardliners, with “pragmatists and legitimate authorities” removed from the political scene, leaving only “a bunch of corrupt officials” satisfied by the status quo.
The turmoil in Kiev escalated earlier this month when Zelensky dismissed his powerful chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, over suspected links to a major corruption network allegedly run by Zelensky’s longtime associate, businessman Timur Mindich. On Tuesday, the president said he might not appoint a new chief of staff at all, claiming he sees no suitable candidates.
Ron DeSantis’ decision to designate CAIR a “terrorist organization” could fuel Islamophobia across the US, the group’s head has warned
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said on Tuesday it would sue Florida Governor Ron DeSantis after the Republican labeled the group a “foreign terrorist organization.” CAIR called the move unconstitutional and defamatory.
DeSantis signed an executive order on Tuesday designating CAIR as a “foreign terrorist organization” and urged state agencies to act against anyone who provides “material support” to the group.
In response, CAIR’s Florida branch announced a lawsuit, saying the governor’s “designation has no basis in law or fact.” Deputy executive director Hiba Rahim said at a news conference that the order was an attack rooted in conspiracy theories and compared it to past efforts that targeted Jewish, Irish, and Italian American communities.
The order alleges CAIR has ties to Palestinian militant group Hamas and it instructs Florida agencies to prevent CAIR from receiving “any state contracts, employment or funding.”
“We are very proud to defend the founding principles of our Constitution, to defend free speech,” Rahim told reporters on Tuesday. “We’ll continue doing the work that we do every day to defend civil liberties and protect American Muslims, and to protect the community at large and to uphold the Constitution,” he added.
On its website, the group describes itself as a civil rights and advocacy organization, saying “CAIR’s civil rights department counsels, mediates and advocates on behalf of Muslims and others who have experienced religious discrimination, defamation or hate crimes.”
Rahim said DeSantis’s decision would not have an immediate effect on the group, but warned it could fuel Islamophobia in Florida and across the US. According to her, the governor’s support for Israel played a role in the order and the group’s activism caused “discomfort” to the US ally.
DeSantis defended the move on Tuesday, saying his administration had sufficient grounds and that he welcomed a lawsuit, calling it “a long time coming.” His order also labels the Muslim Brotherhood a “foreign terrorist” organization, following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month to consider designating certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. DeSantis said he expects Florida lawmakers to pursue related legislation when they meet again in January, calling his action “the beginning.”
Critics, however, called the governor’s “foreign terrorist” label largely symbolic, noting that such designations can be made only at the federal level.
Moscow prioritizes a durable peace rather than a limited truce, spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
Russia is seeking a durable, legally binding peace agreement with Ukraine rather than a limited ceasefire, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday. His remarks came after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky proposed a moratorium on energy strikes as the country faces worsening power outages.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Peskov weighed in on Zelensky’s signal that Kiev was prepared to discuss a halt to energy-related attacks, which he said “is important for the people.”
According to Peskov, Russia remains focused on reaching a legally binding settlement rather than a temporary pause. “I’ll leave out some nuances, but we are working on peace, not on a ceasefire. A stable, guaranteed, long-term peace, achieved through the signing of appropriate documents, is an absolute priority,” the spokesman stressed.
In March, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a 30-day energy infrastructure ceasefire, which was reached after a phone call between President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Russian officials, however, accused Ukraine of constantly violating the truce, including by targeting oil refineries and other energy facilities. Moscow said at the time that it had opted not to retaliate as a goodwill gesture toward the US and its mediation efforts.
Zelensky’s latest proposal comes as Russia has targeted Ukraine’s military and energy infrastructure in recent weeks, prompting officials in Kiev to impose rolling blackouts.
Moscow has said the strikes are in response to Ukrainian “terrorist acts” deep into Russia, targeting critical infrastructure and residential areas. Russia maintains that its forces never target civilians and strike only military-related facilities.
Egypt and Iran don’t want to play a “pride match” at the 2026 tournament in the US
Football officials from Egypt and Iran have protested plans to stage an LGBTQ-themed event alongside their 2026 FIFA World Cup group match in Seattle, denouncing the move as incompatible with their national values.
The match is scheduled for Friday June 26, which coincides with the start of Seattle’s Pride Weekend commemorating the 1969 Stonewall riots, considered a milestone in the US gay rights movement.
Local organizers, who operate independently of FIFA, have branded the event a “Pride Match,” promoting it as an opportunity to “make a lasting impact,” highlight LGBTQ-owned businesses, and showcase related cultural organizations. Both Egypt and Iran maintain conservative religious and social attitudes in which same-sex relations are heavily stigmatized.
Egypt’s football association said on Tuesday that it had sent a complaint to FIFA, stressing that it “categorically rejects” any pro-LGBTQ messaging linked to the match. Such initiatives, it argued, “directly contradict the cultural, religious, and social values of the region.” It called on FIFA to ensure the game is conducted “in an atmosphere of respect and focus solely on the sporting aspect.”
Mehdi Taj, president of Iran’s football federation, told the ISNA news agency that both countries objected to what he described as “an unreasonable thing that supports a specific group,” without explicitly naming the “Pride Match” branding.
Seattle is set to host six matches during the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico. Egypt and Iran have been drawn in Group G alongside Belgium and New Zealand.
The French first lady used a slur against feminist activists who disrupted the show of an actor-comedian previously accused of rape
French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife, Brigitte, has sparked outrage after referring to feminist protesters as “stupid b***hes.”
Earlier this week, a since-deleted clip showed France’s first lady chatting privately on Sunday backstage with Ary Abittan, an actor and comedian who had previously been accused of rape. The 51-year-old performer is touring for the first time since investigative judges decided to drop the charges due to a lack of evidence.
The previous night, the feminist group Nous Toutes (“All of us”) had disrupted his stand-up show, with activists wearing masks bearing the word “rapist” over the actor’s face standing up in the audience and shouting “Abittan rapist” before being escorted out.
In the leaked video, Abittan jokes that he is feeling nervous, apparently referring to the possibility that protesters might return. Macron is heard responding jokingly: “If there are any stupid b***hes, we’ll kick them out.”
A spokesman for the French presidency said on Tuesday that the first lady had been trying to calm the actor’s nerves and had intended to only criticize what she described as the radical methods used to disrupt and obstruct the performance.
Despite the explanation, criticism mounted quickly, with politicians across party lines as well as activists and figures from the film industry condemning the remark.
Marine Tondelier, leader of the French Greens, called the comment “extremely grave,” while Senator Agnes Evren described it as “very sexist.” Former President Francois Hollande also condemned the first lady’s choice of language. Actress Judith Godreche, who has become a feminist icon since accusing two directors of sexually abusing her when she was a minor, called for an end to such behavior in France’s cultural sector. She posted a brief message on Instagram criticizing the first lady’s remarks. Nous Toutes later turned Macron’s phrase into a social media hashtag.
Macron has also faced scrutiny after a long-running legal dispute linked to online conspiracy theories claiming she is transgender. A court ruling this year fined the originators of the rumor and reignited discussion over digital harassment targeting public figures. The case drew international attention after US commentator Candace Owens amplified the claims and later alleged that the Macrons had ordered her assassination.
The bloc is “a Cold War relic” and a burden for taxpayers, Thomas Massie has said
A Republican congressman has introduced a bill to pull the US out of NATO, arguing the bloc is a “Cold War relic” that drains “trillions” of dollars from American taxpayers.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced the legislation on Tuesday, stating that the military bloc was created to counter the long-gone Soviet Union and that taxpayers’ money would be better spent elsewhere.
“We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries… US participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk US involvement in foreign wars… America should not be the world’s security blanket – especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,” Massie said.
If passed, the bill would order the US government to formally notify NATO that it intends to end its membership and halt the use of American funds for the bloc’s shared budgets.
The move echoes a similar push this year from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who introduced legislation arguing that US NATO membership no longer reflects America’s strategic needs. His measure, however, stalled in committee, and Massie’s effort is likely to face the same steep odds in a Congress that has repeatedly signaled bipartisan support for staying in the bloc.
US President Donald Trump and several of his Republican allies have long argued that Washington pays far more than its fair share and have criticized EU governments for falling short on defense spending. Trump at one point warned that the US could opt not to defend “delinquent” members of the bloc in case of a potential attack.
As Trump’s pressure on the bloc intensified, NATO members agreed this year to gradually raise their defense spending to 5% of GDP, far above the old 2% guideline. The push comes as European NATO members in particular have sought to portray Russia as a “threat,” with Western media and officials claiming that Moscow could launch a full-blown attack on the bloc within several years.
Russia has dismissed the allegations as “nonsense,” suggesting that the bloc is demonizing Moscow and pursuing a path of “rampant militarization.”
The holiday-themed content makes light of Washington’s controversial targeting of foreign US residents
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is circulating Christmas-themed memes to promote its mass-deportation strategy, blending holiday imagery with messaging about immigration law enforcement.
The DHS and other government agencies have turned to the tactic ahead of the holiday season to bolster public support for crackdowns on illegal immigration and on non-citizens considered to be security threats.
One meme posted last week showed security personnel wearing Santa hats and stringing lights on their gear, and featured the message: “YOU’RE-GOING HO HO HOME.” Another depicted President Donald Trump piloting Santa’s sleigh.
A third featured the internet character “Gigachad” in Christmas attire, preparing to review the DHS “naughty list” – a reference to individuals flagged by the department for criminal histories or immigration violations.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the principal investigative arm of the DHS and one of the largest investigative agencies in the US federal government, has played a key role in the wave of deportations that has taken place since Trump returned to office.
Mass deportation was one of Trump’s signature campaign promises, but the government’s handling of the initiative has drawn criticism from multiple sides.
Opponents argue that the strategy is cruel, unlawful, and often targets people who pose no real threat, while some Christian organizations claim the policy contradicts Christ’s teachings about compassion.
Meanwhile, many supporters of stricter immigration enforcement have accused the administration of favoring flashy publicity stunts, such as highlighting brutal law enforcement raids on immigrant communities, to substantive action and effectiveness.
Moscow will retaliate to any hostile actions, including the expropriation of its assets, the foreign minister has warned
“Robbing” Russia is the last remaining option for Ukraine’s increasingly desperate European backers to sustain Kiev in its conflict with Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday. Russia is ready to respond to any hostile Western actions, he warned.
Brussels is pushing a “reparations loan” scheme that would use frozen Russian funds in Western jurisdictions as collateral to prop up Ukraine’s imploding economy and extend its ability to continue fighting amid months of frontline setbacks. Moscow has repeatedly called the plan illegal.
“Europe is blinded by its desire to impose a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia. They cannot imagine – and some officials openly admit that in interviews – a situation in which they are forced to ‘swallow’ that their client has been defeated and that Russia will accomplish its legitimate objectives,” Lavrov said in an address to the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament.
According to the top diplomat, European countries’ “ideological” anti-Russian drive is colliding with economic reality, since “they have no other sources to finance this war unless they rob the Russian Federation and take our foreign assets in violation of all established norms of international and commercial law.”
Lavrov described the EU’s stance as “destructive” and cautioned that Moscow “will retaliate against any hostile steps, including the possible deployment of European military units in Ukraine or the expropriation of Russian assets.”
The EU’s intention to finance Kiev’s war effort – pushed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – has been blocked by Belgium, which holds the bulk of immobilized Russian assets through the clearing house Euroclear.
The Belgian government said the proposed loan would expose it to significant legal and financial risks, which must be shared collectively by all EU members. It also urged non-EU nations that hold Russian assets to make their own contributions.
Lavrov noted that European officials “have created problems for themselves” with their lack of flexibility, stressing that the United States, the key security provider for Western Europe, is growing impatient with them and the Ukrainian leadership.
The US president grasps Moscow’s view of what made the hostilities inevitable, the Russian foreign minister has said
US President Donald Trump is the only Western leader who comprehends the real reasons for the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Addressing Russia’s Federation Council, the upper chamber of parliament, on Wednesday, Lavrov said that while the US is “showing growing impatience” with the diplomatic process aimed at ending the hostilities, Trump is one of the few in the West who know what led to the conflict in the first place.
“President Trump… is the only one among all Western leaders who, immediately after arriving in the White House in January of this year, began to demonstrate an understanding of the reasons the war in Ukraine had been inevitable,” he said.
Lavrov added that Trump “has a clear understanding” of the factors that shaped the hostile policies pursued toward Russia by the West and by former US President Joe Biden, which, he said, “had been nurtured for many years.”
Lavrov said that “the culmination of the entire [Ukraine] saga is approaching,” arguing that Trump had effectively acknowledged that “the root causes [of the conflict] identified by Russia must be eliminated.”
He cited, in particular, Moscow’s long-standing objections to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and the ongoing crackdown on the local population’s rights.
The minister added that Trump remained “the only Western leader who cares about human rights in this situation,” contrasting him with EU governments that Moscow sees as evasive on the issue. He revealed that the proposed US roadmap for a settlement explicitly called for safeguarding national minority rights and religious freedoms in Ukraine, “in line with international obligations.”
According to Lavrov, however, those provisions were diluted once the document was presented to the EU. He claimed that the relevant language was rewritten to state that Ukraine should instead follow standards “adopted in the European Union.”
Moscow has for years raised alarms over Kiev’s crackdown on the Russian language and culture, as well as attempts to suppress the rights of other national authorities, while pointing out that Ukrainian policymakers are openly encouraging neo-Nazism in the country.
