Going Beyond Corbynism

On Saturday evening I was in a foul mood. Throughout the day, on social media and YouTube, from text messages to WhatsApp updates, the news was the Your Party founding conference was the shit show everyone thought it would be. Inconvenient amendments not being heard, members being barred from conference - some, but not all, were SWP supporters, the forced removal of a Stand Up to Racism stall pn the orders of "a Scottish woman called Karie", an apparent diddling with the naming options before conference, and Zarah Sultana's own boycott of the first day promised a catastrophic waste of time. And then on the second day, things got ... better.

On single leadership vs collective leadership, the latter won. On keeping the ban on dual membership, Team Jeremy lost. On enshrining trans liberation in the constitution, that vote was won. All these might have been tighter or lost if the secretive organising committee hadn't ham-fistedly imposed themselves on proceedings on the previous day. And in ballots over the weekend, measures emphasising local branch democracy and initiative, anti-cuts principles, trade union relationships, and positioning YP as an explicitly working class socialist party all passed. The only thing Corbyn got his way on was the ridiculous Your Party name. It was good to see him strike a contrite note in his interviews, and likewise Zarah Sultana apologise to conference for her role in making the founding of this party a mess. In all, despite the overdramatic protestations of Corbyn superfans, something was achieved. If YP was in the toilet following the last round of bilious fallings outs, the membership scooped the project out of the bowl as the party's would-be elites yanked hard on the chain.

There are still unresolved issues. Who gets to be the leadership now? With MPs and councillors barred from the incoming executive committee, this is an opportunity for the party to put forward a new generation of leaders. Corbyn will forever remain YP's figurehead, but there's now a chance the party can transition from one-man-band status to something other than his needy dependent. And though existing self-declared Leninist outfits are not barred, what kind of relationship they should have in the new party is in the new committee's gift. Keep them as is, require them to fold into party platforms, re-impose the block? Whoever the leadership will be and whatever they decide to do, the membership have already demonstrated good sense. The chances of the SWP or the other little Lenins taking over or wrecking it through sectarianism is thankfully, for once, remote.

To be sure, Your Party is taking risks organising this way. As others have pointed out, in politics having a stand-out figure is a boon. Ask Reform. Ask the Greens. Without that, how can YP capture the public's eye? This is now especially difficult as September's stupidities have ensured Zack Polanski is hogging much of the space that was YP's for the taking. Where there are still openings is where the left are much stronger than the Greens. I.e. In the workplaces, in community organising, in street movements, in solidarity campaigns. We build from there. Owen Jones argues that time is of the essence, and that's true. But he also knows from his labour movement history and that building the political capacity of our class isn't dependent on elections. There are other ways, and the existing collective experience of YP can counter Labour and the rise of Reform outside the ballot box. It's not the mainstream way of doing things, but then again YP is not a mainstream party.

Doesn't collective leadership and the recall of lay officials suppose permanent factional struggle? Yes. But if the project is organising our class as a political party, it cannot be any other way. The working class is as diverse as it is vast, and anything aspiring to this role has to be a clearing house for experiences and opinion. Discussion, debate, the freedom to form platforms and factions around positions, all these are necessary for formulating strategy. The way forward is not going to be handed down from superhumans living on a higher plane. A democratic workers' party is a noisy party, not a personality cult, not an agreement of diplomatic silences, not a narrow mono-idea sect. This is the challenge YP's membership has set. Which demonstrates a level of political maturity over and above the caricatures attributed to the left - even, sometimes, by itself.

Politics is not easy, especially class politics. Nor are there any guarantees. YP's membership have chosen a difficult path, but in the circumstances, it was the right path, the only path. Drawing a line under the mistakes and idiocies of the last few months means moving on from Corbynism. With all the dust having settled, it's clear this is what Your Party has started to do.

Five Most Popular Posts in November

Finally got my posting skates on last month, so here's what attracted most attention.

1. The Your Party Debacle
2. The Man Who Would Liquidate Labour
3. The Beginning of the End
4. From Reform-Lite to Reform-Plus
5. Bon Voyage, Iqbal Mohamed

In at one was the in-fighting in Your Party. Do I need say more? Yes, but more comment is coming later today reflecting on the weekend's conference. TL;DR in case you're not around to read it: better outcome than expected. In second were further observations about the flimsy, know-nothing politics of Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's right hand man if you've been living under a rock. His project might not be the destruction of the Labour Party, but he's certainly acting as if it is. In at three were the rumours about Wes Streeting planning to coup Keir Starmer in the aftermath of the budget. Which was always an unlikely proposition this side of the coming wipe out in May's council elections. At four was a condemnation and explanation of Labour's adoption of far right policies on refugees - something that is bound to do nothing but harm to their electoral prospects. Bringing up the rear is another YP story, this time the welcome departure of Iqbal Mohamed. Not all resignations and splits are bad!

Second chances? I'll give this piece on wealth taxes another shot in the spotlight. And for science fiction nerds, how about this take on Caspar Geon's The Immeasurable Heaven.

December is here, so treat this place like an especially fun advent calendar. This coming month I'm expecting more Your Party stuff, more science fiction reviews, a still-gestating piece on Jean Baudrillard, the usual politics thrills and spills, and the post absolutely none of you are waiting for - my top ten tunes of the year. It's tradition! As ever, if you haven't already don't forget to follow the (very) occasional newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can bung a few quid and help support the blog. Following me on Bluesky, Facebook, and for what it's worth, Twitter, are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Zarah Sultana's Your Party Speech

No time for writing tonight, so here's the speech Zarah Sultana gave to the second day of Your Party's founding conference. Some reflections to come tomorrow evening, but if you want the full fat version you can find proceedings here and here. Interesting to compare the watch numbers with those attracted to Labour's conference live stream.

Local Council By-Elections November 2025

This month saw 41,477 votes cast in 25 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 18(!) council seats changed hands. For comparison with October's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Oct	+/- Nov 24	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	25	7,171	17.3%	+1.5	-5.3	287	-3
Labour	23	4,502	10.9%	-1.6	-13.8	196	-6
Lib Dem	20	5,324	12.8%	-12.1	-5.6	266	+1
Reform	24	11,432	27.6%	-2.0	+17.5	476	+8
Green	14	5,484	13.2%	+5.2	+6.7	392	0
SNP*	2	2,135	5.1%	+3.1	-7.5	1,068	+1
PC**	1	659	1.6%	+1.6	+1.6	659	0
Ind***	16	4,213	10.2%	+5.2	+6.8	263	-1
Other****	5	657	1.6%	-0.5	-0.2	131	0

* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There was one by-election in Wales
*** There were four Independent clashes this month
**** Others this in November were Alba (83), Equality Party (45), Heritage Party (27), Lingfield and Crowhurst Residents (457), Sovereignty (45)

What a month. Almost three quarters of all the seats that were up changed hands. You want electoral volatility? Council by-elections have them! On top of that, November sticks out for three reasons.

Reform lost vote share on the month-to-month comparison, which is a most infrequent occurrence since Nigel Farage came back as leader and the party started climbing up the polls. They'll keep piling on the council seats in local contests, seeing as they reflect the shift in public attitudes. And will likely do so despite their well known difficulties in local government. Their slight decline is merely a sign that their vote share is more or less stabilising month-to-month.

Then we have Labour's vote, which must be the party's worst performance outside of anomalous months where only a handful of wards face by-elections. Is this rock bottom or is there further to go?

And lastly, congratulations to the Greens. This is the first time, in monthly by-election tally terms, that they've not only come third place, but have out-polled the Liberal Democrats and, crucially as per Zack Polanski's stated position to replace them, Labour. Some might say this is a freak result, but politics being as it is keeps throwing up such outliers.

Pooled results from council by-elections don't matter ... or do they? Leaving aside the caveats that come from interpreting these results, such as the consequences of local issues and local preferences, and thet fact older people are even more likely to vote in them (or, to be more accurate, working age people are even less likely to participate) and their tendency to support the right wing parties, it does paint a picture of what's going on under the hood. And what the state of the engine is telling us is that Labour's base is evaporating. Just as yours truly has been saying for the last five years as Keir Starmer's Labour has moved to adopt policies that would attack its people. If you salt the earth, nothing will grow. A reality that Labour still shows little sign of waking up to.

Santa will bring us the gift of 20 by-elections in December, so expect something of a rinse and repeat of this month's results.

4 November
Burnley, Lanehead, Ind gain from Lab
Burnley, Queensgate, Ind gain from Lab

6 November
Fife, Buckhaven, Methil & Wemyss Villages, SNP gain from Lab
Harborough, Fleckney, Ref gain from Con
Newark & Sherwood, Balderton North & Coddington, Ref gain from Ind
Newark & Sherwood, Castle, Ref gain from Ind
South Derbyshire, Seales, Ind gain from Lab
Tandridge, Westway, LDem gain from Con
Tandridge, Lingfield, Crowhurst & Tandridge, Oth hold
West Devon, Okehampton South, LDem gain from Grn

13 November
Canterbury, Wincheap, Grn gain from LDem
East Lindsey, Chapel St Leonards, Ref gain from Con
Gwynedd, Bethel a'r Felinheli, PC hold
North Somerset, Long Ashton, Grn hold
Vale of White Horse, Ridgeway, LDem hold

20 November
Cheshire East, Macclesfield Central, Grn gain from Lab
Dumfries & Galloway, Stanraer & The Rhin, Con gain from Ind
East Sussex, Ashdown & Conquest, Ref gain from Con
Redcar & Cleveland, South Bank, Lab hold
Stratford-on-Avon, Quinton, LDem hold
Stratford-on-Avon, Salford Priors & Alcester Rural, Ref gain from Con
Trafford, Hale, Con gain from Grn

27 November
King's Lynn & West Norfolk, Hunstanton, Ref gain from Ind
Pendle, Barnoldswick, LDem hold
Sunderland, Hetton, Ref gain from Lab

Image Credit

Hegemonies, Counter-Hegemonies, Anti-Hegemonies: The Theory and Politics of Social Control and Resistance

A call for papers!

The Midlands Conference in Critical Thought will be held on 21st and 22nd May 2026 at the University of Warwick. The call for abstracts closes on 21st January. They need to be submitted via Word, should not exceed 500 words, and should be sent to midlandscritical@gmail.com

Below, you will find the details of the stream I'm convening at conference. The full draft roster of the 15 streams can be found here.

Hegemonies, Counter-Hegemonies, Anti-Hegemonies: The Theory and Politics of Social Control and Resistance

Phil Burton-Cartledge, University of Derby

In an age marked by climate breakdown, stagnating living standards, and capitalist resilience, what does philosophy and social theory have to say about social stasis and social change? Is the 19th century revolutionary project outlined by Marx and elaborated by the tradition that bears his name exhausted? Do the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s still retain their radical force? Has radical politics since been blunted/incorporated by a capitalism of total subsumption that recuperates resistance and repurposes critique as fuel for sign systems, as per the provocations of Jean Baudrillard? Do we live after critical theory, or at this moment of seeming triumph for billionaires, oligarchs, and the states and institutions that serve them, is their system brittle and at the risk of breakdown?

The nature of our conjuncture, of a world where the old are always dying and the new are struggling to be born requires us to constantly ask questions about power and resistance. Especially as our civilisation is menaced by existential risks, environmental challenges, and an oligarchical ruling class uninterested in social peace and human sustainability. If not this, then what?

MCCT 2026 offers an opportunity for activists and thinkers from an array of traditions and research interests to address the question of social change, what a better society might look like, what resources and tendencies are already present that point in this direction, and how we could get there.

This panel welcomes contributions from philosophy, social and political theory, sociology and political science, international relations and social policy, as well as reflections from outside of academia. Papers that engage with the configurations of social control, such as the operation of hegemony, the workings of ideology, the inertia of social momentum and the compulsion of “necessity”, the constitution of governance strategies, and work around social reproduction theory and radical care have a home in this stream. As do contributions on the political economy of class and capital in the age of AI hype, the changing character of party systems, the possibility of cultural and political breakthroughs, capitalist mutations and systemic adaptation, appropriations of radical energies, and engagements within and between different theoretical traditions that grapple with these questions.

Image Credit

Postponing the End

After a bad time of it, what with rumours of plots and a seemingly rudderless approach to state finances, bar the preservation of the wealthy, by this government's standards the budget Rachel Reeves delivered on Wednesday was a good one. Obviously not for those of us who want to see huge inroads made into wealth, or the crisis in underfunded public services and state institutions addressed with the seriousness their decrepit conditions warrant. But a good budget for warding off a leadership challenge. A mix of mild but welcome social democratic measures, above all the well-received abolition of the two-child benefit cap, helps ensure that Reeves and Keir Starmer can have a relaxing Christmas knowing their Waterloo has definitively been postponed until after next May's local elections.

As for the rest of the budget, I'm content to let Owen Jones and James Meadway do the heavy lifting on what the rest of it means.



Image Credit

Labour's Continued Attacks on Liberty

Here is a story that won't stick in the headlines for more than a day. David Lammy has unveiled plans to curtail the right to jury trial for anything but the "most serious" offences.The Times reports the automatic right to appeal will also be scrapped by the government. The plans will involve a new tier of courts presided over by judge-only trials, and will cover offences with penalties of up to five years in prison and/or especially complex cases, like those involving fraud. Relying, as ever, on managerial justifications for a political decisions, drawing on a report by our old friend Sir Brian Leveson, his recommendations were that upending of the right to jury trials would bring much-needed efficiency to proceedings. There is a huge case backlog and that is set to grow further by the end of this parliament, so getting through cases quicker will stop the system seizing up. Leveson and Labour are one: doing nothing is not an option.

Evidently, neither is restoring the levels of resource to the courts that was worn away by the Tories. Hypocritically, Kemi Badenoch memory holed her party's record as she criticised the proposals to scrap juries. Ordinary people have a role to play, she mused. Suella Braverman (remember her?) called this a "serious assault on our liberty" and "an end to our world class justice system". This is the very same former Attorney General who attempted to disregard the jury-led acquittal of four Black Lives Matter protestors accused of dumping Edward Colston's statue into Bristol harbour. Despite this, unfortunately Badenoch and Braverman's charges are examples of the worst people you know making good and correct points. Though if Badenoch takes Keir Starmer to task about this at Prime Minister's Questions, he'll have the list of Tory failings ready around court waiting times, levels of defunding, and so on. It's all very predictable.

That said, I'm not buying what the government are selling. Lammy is saying the backlog has to be reduced, and so the process needs speeding up.That's as far as it goes. Are we to suppose it's a matter of coincidence that this comes after Labour have backed state-mandated curbs of the right to protest and clampdowns on our liberties? Such as the disgraceful designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group, more police powers to prevent protests, including stopping what they deem "repeat protests", and Labour's support for disproportionately long sentences for "disruptive" protestors - particularly those from the environmental movement. Combine that with Labour's attack on asylum, including the legal remedies open to those forced through their inhumane-by-design process, and ICE-style deportations units, Labour are happily - gleefully - building up the infrastructure an authoritarian regime would find useful. It's a good job a right wing extremist party isn't topping the polls and stands no chance of winning the next election.

Image Credit

The Joy of Wealth Taxes

With the budget set to land on Wednesday, there's been a wealth of speculation and, of course, several leaks. Tax has frequently come up in discussion, thanks to Rachel Reeves herself holding an early morning press announcement suggesting she might break manifesto promises. Something Labour could have pulled off, had the government not spent the last 18 months pouring political capital down the drain of stupid and obviously counter-productive policies. Yet debate in more polite circles than this disreputable corner of the internet have focused on taxing wealth, seeing as Zack Polanski and the surging Greens have made headway - and put on polling numbers - partly thanks to pushing this point.

There has been some pushback from centrist sensiblism. Duncan Robinson, writing as Bagehot in the regular Economist column attacks wealth tax populism as a measure that won't raise a great deal, and certainly not as much as Polanski supposes. It peddles the myth that the refurbishment of public services can't be managed without taking more tax off most people. As such, this is irresponsible politics. If this was put to the test, the measure would fall short and state revenues would have to be found from elsewhere. This is a recipe for political damage and disillusionment if the Greens or the left or whoever tries flying in the face of fiscal realities. That, and it would scare the wealthy off. In short, Polanski is promising "a world of common good without sacrifice; a vision of socialism without society."

Two points are worth mulling over here. Polanski and the Greens are absolutely correct to push for a wealth tax. It's a demand designed to shift the political direction of travel away from the right, both in terms of the oligarchical economics the main parties embrace and the racist gutter politics of immigration and asylum. That the political establishment, from the mainstream to the far right have united against wealth taxes is a sign that the Greens have hit a common sensitive spot.

The second point is on what taxes are for. The Economist, as the bourgeois house magazine, deals in common sense. Their common sense. The state's finances are like a household budget, and taxes go into its "current account" - the consolidated fund, which is held by the Bank of England. Like any normal account, its income and outgoings have to be managed and it's not great if the latter exceeds the former. Hence the need for more tax revenues if we want to fund more things. Leaving aside well-worn critiques of this, such as the state being able to borrow from itself, having the power to structure its own debt, and how public spending can boost the tax take through multiplier effects, there are other ways of looking at tax. Chris Dillow, for example, makes the case of using tax to reallocate labour to priority areas. Another way of looking at it, the socialist way, understands that tax isn't about balancing the books. It's a tool for remaking society.

In addition to tax measures that disproportionately hit the wealthy as helpfully outlined by Prem Sikka, if anything Polanski's wealth tax does not go far enough. Steeply progressive income tax, graded rates of employers' National Insurance Contributions based on staff levels and turnover, taxes on dividends, City capital flows, levies on rental income, punitive multiple property ownership taxes, measures aimed at high end luxury consumption, action against offshore wealth repositories under British jurisdiction, and so on. This would be accompanied by tax incentives to encourage cooperatisation, democratise workplaces, the meeting of certain social, civic, and environmental objectives, etc. The concerns of such a tax programme is not primarily about raising money, but lashing capital in chains, abolishing the super rich, removing power from the unaccountably wealthy, and making inroads into the private ownership of the means of life. Obviously, such an approach to tax can't stand up on its own. It needs a mass movement behind it, concerted activity with others across the globe, and a political understanding that they would meet fierce elite resistance - and a programme to defeat it.

In other words, tax needs to be recognised as a weapon. The establishment knows it can be used against them, just as they've used it against us. And for that reason, the left, regardless of its party colours, should keep pushing for wealth taxes.

Image Credit

Conceiving the Alien

Caspar Geon (AKA Tom Toner)'s The Immeasurable Heaven set off ripples of interest with its promise of a 100% alien cast of characters. Something few other science fiction authors have attempted. The other thing going for this novel is the utterly luscious, life-suffused universe of Yokkun's Depth - the teeming galaxy of the setting. To convey not just the flavour of a galaxy, but of multiple realities sets a new bar for world building in SF, but is that all there is to it?

Set a couple of billion years ago in a galaxy far, far away, the inhabitants of Yokkun's Depth - humanoidish and otherwise - are long used to a more or less peaceful co-existence. In the heart of every star resides the immensely powerful post-machine intelligences, the Throlken. They have manipulated and shaped the galaxy's biological species for over 300m years, and have given it a common language, a light touch governance structure, and a unified economy. There is no war, nor any violence. For Yokkun's Depth is a hyper-Foucauldian space. With swarms of their microscopic servants inhabiting every litre of air and not a few volumes of vacuum, violent acts are stopped by liquefying the perpetrator's brain.

The galaxy has another feature. A well that leads to layers of reality beneath the surface. These can be accessed by falling into the well, or coating oneself in iliquin, a special mineral that punctures the membrance between realities. Messages can be sent up and down the realities, or phaslairs, and they have been variously colonised by what passes for the powers of Yokkun's Depth. The Throlken, for example, are omnipresent in many of them. But the physics of sliding between the layers is one-way. Someone can travel down, but they cannot come up again. Consternation verges on panic when there is a suggestion of someone, or something, has found their way around the laws of reality and are ascending through the phaslairs. How, and more importantly, why, is a complete unknown. Even the all-powerful Throlken are disturbed and none-the-wiser.

This is the set up. A world that heaps one novum on to another in quick succession. The plot revolves around three people. Yib'Wor, who begins the novel scratching an existence out of and trying to escape a dead world, Whirazomar (Whira), an agent sent to the well to investigate and, if needs be, stop the rising entity, and Draebol, a surveyor of phaslairs and the maker of a map of the realities - something that would be sought after, if it was ever to be put up for sale. They are three characters whose paths are sure to cross eventually.

The Immeasurable Heaven is certainly a flavoursome novel. Perhaps too flavoursome given the funky, gunky habits of many of the species we're introduced too. It's well written and has that good-humoured vibe common among contemporary British science fiction writers. The dialogue is spot on, and there are some memorable characters. Such as Gnumph, a "megaspore" who swallows its passengers and stows them in its stomach as it zips about the galaxy. I do think the plot, however, could have been better defined and it is sometimes lost among the verdant prose. Also in common with much current UK SF, multiplicity has a strong presence. But unlike Adrian Tchaikovsky and MR Carey, the plot does not hinge upon it. While the aforementioned draw dynamism from the struggle between, I suppose, territoriality and deterritorialisation, of trying to force everything into a mould versus live-and-let-live, Yokkun's Depth has none of this. The Throlken police violence and they have fenced off sections of the galaxy, but that's more or less the extent of their contemporary involvement. The rising entity certainly conducts its relations with others through a strictly instrumental lens, but its ultimate goal is not about imposing a straitjacket or a prison on the galaxy.

Geon/Toner is forced to impose some reterritorialisation of his own to make a novel out of his book. The aliens are varied and weird, but their cultures and psychologies much less so. Whether an eight-winged monstrosity, a be-slippered centipede analogue, or sentient parasites inhabiting the nostrils of their host, these characters are very human. Only the Throlken remain inscrutable. Compared, again, with Tchaikovsky whose work can be characterised as posthumanist SF thanks to the level of detail that goes into constructing psychologically-convincing non-human protagonists, there perhaps could have been room here for some similar exploration. Second, for all the wonderful weirdness, the socioeconomic system that unites Yokkun's Depth and other civilised phaslairs is ... capitalism. Characters want to be wealthy. Characters have to buy things. Characters have to rent out rooms (and, on one occasion, a floating junkberg on the edge of a solar system). It's easier to imagine alternative biologies than alternatives to capitalism, to put a spin on Fredric Jameson. As such the world building only goes so far, and not far enough into the truly alien. Lastly, for a seething novel bursting with life forms, the publisher - Solaris - could not have cranked out a more boring cover. Do they not believe in catching the buying public's eye?

These criticism aside, The Immeasurable Heaven will probably benefit from a reread. There is a lot going on here away from the plot line, and there are details that could be savoured on the second trip through. It is a recommend to SF readers, certainly, and it will be getting a nomination from me for the longlist of the British Science Fiction Association awards this year. And I hope there are more adventures and explorations of this setting to come.

Bon Voyage, Iqbal Mohamed

And off he goes. Following the departure of Adnan Hussein on 14th November from Your Party, resignation watchers' eyes were on Iqbal Mohamed. There was his conversation with Hussein on this very topic. And he prepped the ground for leaving by taking to social media to repeat the same tired transphobic talking points. An action Mohamed knew would provoke a reaction from YP supporters, as well as sharp criticism from Zarah Sultana, his erstwhile colleague. And, what do you know, his resignation statement references "false allegations and smears". How very unexpected.

You could see it coming from a mile off. Yet this caps off another row, this time about Sultana hosting her own rally prior to the founding conference next weekend. Apparently, there was no guarantee that she would address the main gathering and is, therefore, having a pro-democracy meeting to rally left wingers fed up with the Labour-esque control-freakery that has disfigured YP from the beginning. The background to this is the demand with menaces that she hand over the cash from her ill-starred unilateral launch of the YP membership portal, and her being kept away from the conference organising committee. Which, of course, is taking place in utmost secrecy and without any accountability whatsoever. And now there's news Jeremy Corbyn will host his own rally, replete with "special guests". With leading figures like these, it's a wonder the process has got as far as it has.

But back to the resignation. Some will take this as more evidence of the new party's instability and chaotic start. I'm inclined to a more positive view. As argued previously on the relationship between the new left party and the Independent Alliance MPs, this should be one of respect, continued dialogue, and joint actions where appropriate. But because of their politics, they should not have been invited to take leading roles in founding a left alternative to Labour. The rows that have happened are testament to this and, again, do not speak well of Corbyn's acumen. Nevertheless, Mohamed's departure is welcome as it underlines what the party should be - a party of our class in all its diversity.

Image Credit