Letters: Your Party is limited by the structure behind it

Your Party founding conference in 2025 (Photo: thisisyourparty/X)

Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters have won a victory in Your Party’s central executive committee (CEC) elections. But it can’t simply be explained by the “clique’s” control over the voting process.

Corbyn framed the leadership election as a choice between a party with “the broadest possible support” or “an angry fringe party”.

His supporters said Your Party should appeal to “potential allies” to the right and focus on elections rather than building movements outside parliament.

Socialist Worker is right that this vision would create a “Labour Party mark 2”. But in a “left reformist” organisation those arguments have a strong pull on members.

That’s particularly true for those more “passive” members who may not be activists. They are those hoping the party will form a left wing opposition or government.

That explains why left wing activists could beat the “clique” over many issues at the founding conference, but lost in a wider vote of all members for the CEC.

To most of its supporters, the idea that Your Party should prioritise becoming a radical, extra‑parliamentary force over building a “broad” electoral coalition will seem counter-intuitive.

That pull of electoralism will only grow stronger once it starts contesting elections.

This dynamic is inherent in left reformist parties—making them difficult terrain for revolutionaries.

The danger is that we get dragged into internal battles to “transform” Your Party, such as those that absorbed the Labour left. If revolutionaries find Your Party to be a place where they can build extra-parliamentary struggles, then they should.

But we should be clear about its limitations and the structural reasons for them.

Nick Clark, south London

Cuts to Esol are racist

The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority, led by Reform UK mayor Andrea Jenkyns, has approved cuts to funding for English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) courses.

Instead, it will fund courses for “native Lincolnshire people”.

This is despite three quarters of local people, responding to a consultation, saying that they were against the cuts.

The consultation was ignored by the authority, who said that half of the respondents were “directly involved in the sector and/or are experts and specialists”.

However, most of the remaining respondents also did not support the proposals either.

Many respondents who were labelled experts are workers who teach English in colleges. They are worried about the threat to their jobs and the loss of support for migrants.

Esol courses are a lifeline to those immigrating to Britain, helping them to integrate into society.

Removing Esol funding, that takes up only 5 percent of the total Adult Skills Fund, is performative racism and will only stoke division.

UCU union member, Lincolnshire

We shouldn’t have to apologise for Tourette’s

Tourette’s is a neurological disorder manifesting as movements or vocalisations known as tics. These are completely uncontrollable.

Vocal tics do not reflect what a person is thinking.

The Bafta awards took place on 22 February, during which Tourette’s activist John Davidson tic’d the n-word as Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo, two black men, joined the stage.

This resulted in mass public outcry against Davidson.

Even when unintentional, slurs cause real harm.

Davidson apologised to the men privately, but demands were made for a public apology.

Expecting anyone to apologise for existing with Tourette’s is ridiculous. If an apology is due, it is from the BBC. The BBC had the ability to mute audio. They censored “Free Palestine”, and a homophobic slur tic’d by Davidson. They made a choice here.

Anti-racism and anti‑ableism exist as one struggle—we cannot afford to be pitted against each other.

Isla, Glasgow