Following on from my previous post regarding the registration email received by ‘your Party’ subscribed emails, it seems as though the membership sign up site was created by Zarah Sultana independently of the rest of the party. This has been corroborated by a statement released by Zarah on both the YourParty-membership site and X. Stating that the reason for doing so was being pushed out of decision making and an apparent “boys club” methodology to the current decision making.
All of this controversy is very fresh, so it’s difficult to get a clear picture, but it seems like today’s membership portal was setup as a means to wrestle leverage in ongoing debates between supposed custodians of the founding process. I’m retaining my membership there out of morbid curiosity on what happens to the money etc, but I can’t advise others to do the same in good conscience. All in all a dark day for a party that’s yet to lay down its founding documents let alone name. Apologies to any who have been misled by my previous post.
Oh of course, and I respect your viewpoint on the matter. It was meant to be one of the founding principals of the party afterall, healthy discourse through disagreement, and i believe that’s what we’re doing here, disagreement without being disagreeable.
I agree with that assessment. I just think it’s our respective opinions on the publicity of ZS’ statements that differ; I don’t think it’s a good idea to handle things in such a public manner, especially whilst trying to gain mass adoption for the party. It feels as though she’s leaned into the leftist infighting trope for a while now. Publicly criticizing your co-leader on tv is never a good idea, let alone less than 2 months into the setup, so I’m not surprised things have soured further since.
The letter signed by JC and the other MPs involved did mention their intent to pursue legal action, and with finances involved, it could get quite messy. So I wouldn’t expect any detailed or inflammatory public statements from the prosecuting side, given that’s the general advice in legal disputes. But that’s just pure conjecture on my part.
Yep. I’ve also been very pleased to share your views.
And am myself a little suspicious of both sides.
Where I disagree is ZS claims. Seem to have been concerned that power was being removed from membership before they had any options to stop it.
If that is true and she is honest. Then public ally and directly is the only way to prevent it.
But I Def think indicating the breakdown before potential members joined. Was important. She failed their.