Zarah Sultana has resigned from the UK’s Labour Party after 14 years to lead a new party with former Labour leader and independent MP Jeremy Corbyn.
“Today, after 14 years, I’m resigning from the Labour Party,” she said in a statement on Thursday evening local time.
“Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other Independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country.”
Sultana cited the Starmer government’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza as a reason for leaving, saying that “this government is an active participant in genocide. And the British people oppose it.”
Just for anyone still following this odd developing story, Corbyn has now issued a statement in which he says ‘discussions are still ongoing’ about a ‘real alternative’, but does not say he’s going to be co-leader of anything. This seems to me to match what Jessica Elgot and Gabriel Pogrund were reporting yesterday: that, contra Zarah Sultana’s statement, there’s not (yet) a new party and Corbyn is not co-leader.
Cc. @[email protected]
I would be all for a new left-wing party but I don’t particularly think it would be a good idea to have Corbin anywhere near it. As much as I agree with him as a person he’s truly awful at being a politician. He just doesn’t seem to play the game very well.
Him being in an advisory role would be absolutely fine.
Corbyn is a huge name and he has massive street cred.
Seems like they are confirming they are working on it? Where does it say she won’t co-lead? And co-leading doesn’t mean being the party leader. Maybe it’s a kind of vice-president position.
Again, I’m struggling here, because as in our previous discussions, you don’t seem to be replying to the words I’ve written. I said: ‘Corbyn is not co-leader’, and you reply, ‘Where does it say [Sultana] is not co-leader?’
As often with supporters of Corbyn, I find your willingness to read whatever you want into his sayings a source of frustration. If he is co-leading this new foundation, or party, or whatever it is, why did he not just say so? Why use the passive voice? I suspect the reason he writes these convoluted non-statements - who is ‘us’? What is a ‘new kind’ of party? Who is shaping it? Amongst whom are discussions ongoing? - is precisely to avoid anyone pinning him down to anything concrete.
Where did it say Corbyn would co-lead? Where did it say Corbyn won’t co-lead? If Zarah says something and Corbyn doesn’t deny it then the statement is not disproven. Co-leading means holding a leadership role, not being its full leader. I really don’t understand why you’re so keen on claiming a false positive when there are no contradictory statements
When he starts assembling a new party he knows the news will leak quickly. So now that he starts this endeavor there’s no real point in keeping it secret. Corbyn is playing open card here and somehow people are still nitpicking.
As often with opponents of Corbyn, I find your willingness to read whatever you want into his sayings a source of frustration
Again, the case is the exact opposite of the one you’re making. ‘When he starts assembling a new party he knows the news will leak’ - so why did he not have a clear statement ready? Because he has nothing to say. He’s ‘playing open card’ but he’s incapable of even saying who is putting the party together, or confirming if he’s in some sort of leadeship role. Why? Because he has nothing to say.
Frankly, I think Sultana knows that waiting for Corbyn to commit to anything will take forever. She was probably trying to bounce him into taking an actual position and, as most people have found, he just doesn’t want to. Good for her for trying something big but, for her sake, I hope this shows her it’s time to move on from the guy.
You have got to stop putting this dim, narcissistic man on a pedestal and taking your fanfic about him as reality. The reason he has said nothing concrete is that he has nothing to say.
You are talking about the only politician daring to oppose the Israel lobby, is that correct?
The whole premise of our discussion is whether or not he is planning to co-lead a party with other politicians who oppose the Israel lobby! So, no! Manifestly not!
The premise of my argument is that Corbyn most definitely has actual positions. In fact, he has the strongest of positions.
Again, I find myself having to explain sentences to you. He has nothing to say ‘in this context, about this thing, which is the subject of our discussion’ is not the kind of clarification I should have to append to my every utterance, I feel.