yourparty-membership potentially ~~fake~~ [conflicted and confused information]
[Edit just to add that you should individually do your research, this was posted early to warn people. It may/may-not be misleading]
Straight from an email from Your Party via their usual channel
"This morning, an unauthorised email was sent to all yourparty.uk supporters with details of a supposed membership portal hosted in a new domain name. Legal advice is being taken. That email should be ignored by all supporters. If any direct debits have been set up, they should be immediately cancelled. "
I believe this relates to the URL https://www.yourparty-membership.uk/
Please note yourparty.uk does not currently contain a link to the above domain.
7 replies
Sorry for the image, but need to be logged in to access the post:
To make it easier anyone who joined this way received the email below.
A statement from Zarah Sultana MP
Zarah Sultana MP
Posted in Announcements
I want to clarify the situation regarding the membership system for Your Party.
Neither of this week’s emails had the dual authorisation of both myself and Jeremy - which was the agreement made at the start of this process.
After being sidelined by the MPs named in today’s statement and effectively frozen out of the official accounts, I took the step of launching a membership portal so that supporters could continue to engage and organise. This was in line with the roadmap set out to members on Monday and is a safe, secure, legitimate portal for the party. Everyone who supports us should sign up now.
My sole motivation has been to safeguard the grassroots involvement that is essential to building this party.
Unfortunately, I have been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club: I have been treated appallingly and excluded completely. They have refused to allow any other women with voting rights on the Working Group, blocking the gender-balanced committee that both Jeremy and I signed up to.
It is also important to be transparent about why this situation has arisen. I do not believe members will accept Karie Murphy and her associates having sole financial control of members’ money and sole constitutional control over our conference. This undermines the democratic principles we agreed to uphold.
From the outset, we agreed that MOU Operations Ltd - stewarded by Jamie Driscroll, Beth Winter and Andrew Feinstein - would hold and manage funds on behalf of members until the founding conference, at which point they would be transferred to a new entity established democratically. Every penny raised so far has gone to MOU Operations, and this continues to be the case within our new membership portal. This, to be clear, is members’ money - and our members must decide how it is spent.
This arrangement was designed to ensure transparency, accountability and protection against the concentration of financial control in the hands of any one person.
I regret that today’s statement has misrepresented the situation. My actions have been consistent with our shared commitment: to build an open, democratic and member-led organisation. I will continue to fight for a process where members’ money, data and voices are safeguarded, not centralised under the control of one individual.
I am calling on Jeremy to meet with me and agree to make public all agreed structures, processes and decision-making protocols. Doing this will restore hope for our members, and ensure nothing like this can ever happen again. This party is more important than any one person, and we all owe it to the movement to deliver a truly democratic and socialist party.
The democratic founding conference of this party will take place in late November.
I will keep fighting for a minimum programme for maximum democracy, you have my word.
No stitch-ups, no coronations: the members must decide.
Zarah Sultana MP
Member of Parliament for Coventry South
Long story short there seems to be some sort of conflict in the party and Zarah Sultana put up a new portal to allow people to register easier. I’m not 100% sure what’s going on yet but I am 100% sure it’s not phishing.
Yeah. Reading between the lines. And guessing.
It seems like the other MPs that have latched on to yourparty after JC and ZS agreed to it. Are trying to take control. Or ZS thinks they are.
I tent to trust ZS. So have no worry about her having control of the funds. Pretty sure it will go to the right place. As for her claims. I have no reason to question them. And her site seems to provide open discussion etc as she claims.
Fuck sake.
This cannot be how piss poorly organised this party starts if it actually wants to make a serious change. Some of the voter may be thick as shit and willing to pour their money into scams. But, the people I know who want to support something like this are also all smart enough to avoid being caught up in it.
Not so sure.
If what ZS claims is true. It is exactly how I'd expect certain MPs used to leading parties rather then following members requirements. To try and mess with a party before it gains any power.
The whole idea that this party is supposed to be entirely membership lead. Is very opposed to how labour or any other political party has worked in the past. And if certain MPs felt they were about to lose power to such a party. This is exactly how they could take it down.
Let's be honest. It was exactly what a large %of MPs and Labour workers did to Labour when Corbyn tried to make that more democratic.
Not only that ... the site isn't up to scratch really. It's not finished and just been pushed.
What does "concessionary member" actually mean. Is there any policing of this? Why does the link in the emails sent out "https://api.secondstreetapp.com/m_c_t/" not work? It could just be that secondstreetapp have been overloaded? Why is that link not just to the membership portal?
Why does the main page and portal not link together to show they're valid.
I get what others here are saying. I'm not sure this is a scam, I'm also not sure this is not a scam site. But it's not giving off vibes of quality and consistency.
If Zarah has seen some internal conflict. Making that part of releasing the site, rather than this blindsided approach seems more prudent. This is farsical right now.