I certainly accept that The Many’s politics are despicable evasive and dishonest.
But as you hint in your postscript it is by no means clear or necessary that this is due to SA influence. The likes of Karie Murphy Pamela Fitzpatrick Jenn Forbes Nicola James Len McCluskey Alex Nunns Andrew Jordan etc have not needed SA input to hone their despicable politics. Key also has been James Schneider and that grifter Roger Hallam.
And while SA were crucial for Livingstone Corbyn looked the other way while he was expelled from Labour.John Ross as you say is in China.
The important takeaway is The Many’s vile politics. And also the way they explicitly want YP to not be a political party but in fact a quasi-religious personality cult. Sickening frightening and hilarious in equal measure
Deborah, this is a genuinely useful contribution and the constitutional analysis is stronger than anything else I've seen in the left press. You're right that the founding documents contain sophisticated institutional design that neither faction's behaviour deserves. The sortition mechanisms, the deliberative infrastructure, the polycentric governance: all of this is real and all of it matters.
Where I'd push back is on the underlying assumption. The piece treats YP's crisis as an organisational design problem: better facilitation, better processes, better role allocation. But the conflict between The Many and Grassroots Left is not a competency gap. It is a political antagonism. One tendency wants a parliamentary pressure group led by professional apparatchiks with deliberately vague politics. The other wants a member-led socialist party with a clear programme. No amount of sortition working groups or Policy Sprints will reconcile those projects, because they are not compatible projects.
The AI methodology compounds this. Five LLMs trained on overlapping organisational theory literature will converge on liberal-proceduralist recommendations every time, not because the answer is correct but because the training data is shared. That's not the wisdom of crowds; it's an echo with better footnotes. The machines can summarise Denis et al. competently. They cannot tell you why Corbyn's inner circle is withholding data from branches, who benefits from that withholding, or what class forces the different factions represent. Political judgement is precisely what this moment demands, and it's the one thing the AIs cannot supply.
None of which diminishes what you've done here. The constitutional architecture is the best thing about Your Party. The question is which political forces have the commitment to implement it honestly. That's not a design question. It's a political one.
Spot on, yet again. Wriggling around the question, just like they've always done, is a red rag to a bull, and it is no longer a socialist red rag.
I certainly accept that The Many’s politics are despicable evasive and dishonest.
But as you hint in your postscript it is by no means clear or necessary that this is due to SA influence. The likes of Karie Murphy Pamela Fitzpatrick Jenn Forbes Nicola James Len McCluskey Alex Nunns Andrew Jordan etc have not needed SA input to hone their despicable politics. Key also has been James Schneider and that grifter Roger Hallam.
And while SA were crucial for Livingstone Corbyn looked the other way while he was expelled from Labour.John Ross as you say is in China.
The important takeaway is The Many’s vile politics. And also the way they explicitly want YP to not be a political party but in fact a quasi-religious personality cult. Sickening frightening and hilarious in equal measure
You'll like this post about Corbyn and Sultana's leadership qualities (or lack thereof).
https://open.substack.com/pub/deborahwafoulkes/p/who-should-lead-your-party-jeremy?r=1f2ej0&utm_medium=ios
I've removed a comment that included laughable libel against Jeremy Corbyn. Save your speculative conspiracies for the pub.
I think you’ll like this post about the CEC election.
https://deborahwafoulkes.substack.com/p/the-your-party-collective-leadership?r=1f2ej0&utm_medium=ios
Deborah, this is a genuinely useful contribution and the constitutional analysis is stronger than anything else I've seen in the left press. You're right that the founding documents contain sophisticated institutional design that neither faction's behaviour deserves. The sortition mechanisms, the deliberative infrastructure, the polycentric governance: all of this is real and all of it matters.
Where I'd push back is on the underlying assumption. The piece treats YP's crisis as an organisational design problem: better facilitation, better processes, better role allocation. But the conflict between The Many and Grassroots Left is not a competency gap. It is a political antagonism. One tendency wants a parliamentary pressure group led by professional apparatchiks with deliberately vague politics. The other wants a member-led socialist party with a clear programme. No amount of sortition working groups or Policy Sprints will reconcile those projects, because they are not compatible projects.
The AI methodology compounds this. Five LLMs trained on overlapping organisational theory literature will converge on liberal-proceduralist recommendations every time, not because the answer is correct but because the training data is shared. That's not the wisdom of crowds; it's an echo with better footnotes. The machines can summarise Denis et al. competently. They cannot tell you why Corbyn's inner circle is withholding data from branches, who benefits from that withholding, or what class forces the different factions represent. Political judgement is precisely what this moment demands, and it's the one thing the AIs cannot supply.
None of which diminishes what you've done here. The constitutional architecture is the best thing about Your Party. The question is which political forces have the commitment to implement it honestly. That's not a design question. It's a political one.
Agree: and love the phrase LLM convergence is not the wisdom of crowds but an echo chamber with footnotes….
A good soundbite does a lot of lifting :)