As you may have noticed, there’s been some speculation driven by opinion polling that a “new, well-organised” Jeremy Corbyn-led party could take as much as 10 per cent of the vote at a general election – and smash Labour’s prospects of a second term. I think we need to think that through a bit more.
For starters, we have that glorious oxymoron – a “well-organised” Corbynite party. I think, on the basis of the British left’s unsurpassed record for splits, rows, delusion and chaos, we should all recalibrate our expectations to contemplate how a badly organised Corbyn-led party might change the scene. Here, I think the voters might find good reason not to put their faith in the new movement, such as it is.
It seems disconcerting that the putative co-leaders of the organisation, the independent MP Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana – also ex-Labour, and also an independent – seem to be operating almost entirely, well, independently, if you’ll pardon the joke.
When the party was first launched a few weeks ago, Sultana put out a statement to that effect and declared herself co-leader. This seemed to take Corbyn entirely by surprise, and, according to some possibly mischievous reporting, he was a bit annoyed.
Now this improbable dream team seem to have done it again. Interviewed on television, putting as cheery a face on the lack of coordination as he could, Corbyn declared that he and his colleague were “all fine” and that they were “working absolutely together on this”. But he didn’t know where she was – possibly in Coventry (where he might like to send her for good) – and said they’d been in touch on the phone. What one would give to read the transcript of that call.
Theoretically, the Corbyn-Sultana, or Sultana-Corbyn, combo would be one of the great dream tickets of our time – the equivalent, for an Arsenal fan such as Jezza, of Thierry Henry and Dennis Bergkamp, or the way Tony Blair and John Prescott balanced the different strands of Labour thinking in the old days.
Corbyn would be the elder statesman: experienced, lost two elections in a row, that sort of thing. Sultana, on the other hand, would represent youth, hope, optimism, and the certainty of losing many more general elections in future. Let them go forward together!
In reality, of course, Corbyn has always had a rather vain streak; he greatly enjoyed being Labour leader and succumbed too easily to the propaganda about him generated by his fanatical army of Corbynistas. He doesn’t seem quite as tolerant of dissent as he makes out.
If the Sultana-Corbyn partnership is serious about building this new party, then why didn’t the pair of them turn up at some big rally, or at least at the same press conference, hand in hand, arm in arm? Political parties, like marriages, are made much more difficult if they’re conducted at long distance. The media folk can’t fall back on Photoshop or AI to get a shot of the couple together.
Maybe, indeed, Corbyn and Sultana are like those other apparently fun double acts who actually hated each other behind the scenes – such as Wilfrid Brambell and Harry H Corbett, who played the leads in Steptoe and Son, in which the old man always frustrated the aspirational ambitions of his offspring. Funnily enough.
At the moment, they don’t seem to be able to agree on a name – not for the double act, but for the party (though “Steptoe and Daughter” does spring to mind). Sultana had to quickly take to social media to point out that “Your Party” is just a working title, and the actual name is yet to be decided. I’m wondering whether we are in this position because she might not be that keen on “Peace and Justice”, which is literally owned by Corbyn (Companies House number 12945855) and was established as his own political vehicle when he was being pushed out of Labour.
Sultana might well have ideas of her own about her party. I look forward to the Pythonesque debate at the first party assembly on whether “Peace and Justice” works as well as “Justice and Peace”. Card vote on that one, I guess.
Anyone on the left with any hopes of this being a properly run, disciplined and, indeed, well-organised party with clear policies and precise messaging should also wince with fear at Corbyn’s latest thinking on his locally autonomous, grassroots movement: “This is going to be community-led, community-based, grassroot-led – this is going to be very different, and you know what? It's going to be fun.”
Well, you know what? The people who are going to have the most fun with Your Party are sods like me in the media who’ll find it far too easy to satirise. The people who’ll have no fun at all are the ones who’ll have to live under a Farage government thanks to this latest bunch of “splitters”, if I can use a traditional socialistic term.
I give it six months before Sultana and Corbyn have both left to start their own parties. Jeremy can have Justice, and Zarah can have Peace – each get half of the remaining membership (Corbynistas vs Sultanas) – and Starmer’s Labour Party (and the rest of us) can forget all about them.
The net effect, as it happens, may be to discredit Starmer’s critics on his left; to recentre the Labour Party away from its fringes; to remind disgruntled Labour backbenchers how voting against the government endangers their administration; and to halt the rise of the Greens, which has become a natural repository for disgruntled hard-leftists.
It’s unpredictable – but the last thing the country needs is a more anarchic version of the Labour Party, with Jeremy and Zarah being jobshare co-prime ministers. Not fun.
It’s time for the UK to recognise Palestine
‘Long, unsocial hours – for what?’ Frustration over doctor pay boils over
Keir Starmer can rightly be proud of the historic trade deal with India
Trump’s golfing weekend in Scotland is a bigger headache than his state visit
To all the angry men online, putting face-scan checks on porn really isn’t about you
Devastating UK aid cuts are a matter of life and death for women in Africa
