Your Party executive (CEC) member Sam Gorst is well known for his 2023 thrashing of Labour in the Garston local elections, and for being elected to the CEC as an independent.
But now he is an ex-CEC and Your Party (YP) member after resigning from both.
The resignation comes in the wake of outrage from the CEC, after the suspension of three Your Party executive members for attending a socialist event — leading to a unanimous no-confidence vote in the officials held responsible. YP parliamentary leader Jeremy Corbyn then controversially rejected the vote.
In a message to other CEC members shown to Skwawkbox by YP executive members, Gorst said that even the party’s handling of his resignation had let him down:

Resignation of Your Party and Central Executive Committee
The attached resignation letter explains Gorst’s disillusionment with the “lost opportunity” of YP and the manoeuvres of different factions within it:
Dear CEC colleagues,
It is with considerable sadness that I write to resign my membership of Your Party and step down from my position on the Central Executive Committee.
I joined Your Party with genuine optimism. Having been elected as a Liverpool Community Independent councillor for Garston and previously representing the now-defunct Cressington ward as a socialist Labour councillor, I believed this new political project had the potential to provide a credible, democratic and principled alternative for working-class people.
Sadly, I can no longer, in good faith, remain a member of Your Party or continue to serve on its Central Executive Committee.
This has not been an impulsive decision. It has been developing over many months. I drafted this resignation several days before any motion of no confidence in specific officers appeared on the agenda, while I was contemplating my future within Your Party and carefully considering whether I could continue as a member and serve on the Central Executive Committee. The events that followed formed part of that wider period of reflection but this decision has been reached only after giving the matter serious, careful and honest consideration.
When the party launched, there was genuine excitement and significant public interest. We were presented with a rare opportunity to build something meaningful and enduring. Regrettably, most of that momentum has now been lost.
Factionalism exists within most democratic political parties, particularly on the left, and some ideological debate can be healthy. However, what I have witnessed has gone far beyond legitimate political disagreement.
As the only genuinely independent left voice on the CEC, not aligned with or supported by any faction, I have experienced and observed repeated breaches of confidentiality, disrespect, unnecessary hostility, a siloed, obstructive culture and a persistent lack of openness and transparency. Those are not the foundations upon which a democratic socialist party should be built.
My political journey has taught me the personal cost of remaining within dysfunctional organisations. I joined the Labour Party on 28 July 2015, inspired by Jeremy Corbyn’s vision of a fairer and more compassionate society. Having recently become a father, I wanted to play a part in creating a better future for the next generation.
During my time in Labour, I was suspended on several occasions because of my political beliefs, my support for Palestine and my opposition to council cuts. Although I successfully challenged those suspensions, I was ultimately expelled under Keir Starmer’s leadership for having previously liked a Socialist Appeal Facebook post that was retrospectively proscribed. There was no right of appeal from a party led by a former human rights lawyer.
That experience had a profound impact on my mental health and wellbeing, and I have no intention of allowing history to repeat itself. I must protect both my wellbeing and the reputation I have spent many years building as a socialist, community councillor and campaigner.
I genuinely wanted Your Party to succeed and I still hope that those involved reflect honestly on how we arrived at this point.
I was equally disappointed by the conduct of elements of the slate that lost the internal elections. Rather than accepting the democratic outcome and working constructively, there appeared to be repeated attempts to delay, obstruct and filibuster proceedings. Internal loyalties and personal positioning too often took precedence over building the party and meeting members’ expectations.
Responsibility, however, does not rest solely with them. The governing slate also failed to improve communication, transparency and meaningful engagement across the whole CEC. Increasingly, I was left with the impression that preserving internal influence and managing dissent had become more important than listening to members or building the movement this country urgently needs.
On 12 July 2026, I supported the requisition of a Special Meeting of the Central Executive Committee for three reasons. Firstly, the continued lack of progress within the Party; secondly, information I had received from the Data Protection Officer which caused me significant concern; and thirdly, the increasing pattern of unilateral decision-making by a small number of individuals without consultation with the Central Executive Committee as a whole. Indeed, some members of the Officer Group themselves were unaware of decisions that had already been taken.
At that meeting, I voted in favour of the motions of no confidence in the Chair, the Secretary and the Membership Officer. Before those motions were considered, the Central Executive Committee voted to suspend the relevant Standing Order, allowing the motions to be heard outside of an Annual General Meeting.
The motions related solely to the Executive positions those individuals held and not to their membership of the Party. I supported these motions because I believe in upholding the Party’s constitution and democratic processes. In my view, changes to the Executive were necessary to strengthen governance, accountability, transparency, inclusivity, data protection, regulatory compliance and, most importantly, to provide the Party with the strongest possible foundations for long-term success.
The intention was never to remove individuals from Your Party’s CEC. Rather, it was to deliver root-and-branch reform of the Party’s culture, internal democracy and governance. I believed this could only be achieved by changing the composition of the Executive, as too many key decisions had been made without meaningful consultation with the wider CEC. Reform was needed to restore fairness and ensure every region and nation had an equal voice in the Party’s direction. Ultimately, the aim was to establish an Executive capable of working collaboratively, rebuilding trust within the CEC and restoring the confidence of the wider membership.
Unfortunately, I no longer believe those necessary reforms will be delivered after emails received tonight, to the contrary, I recognise without any doubt that each CEC member is not being treated with equity. Like Labour, a hierarchy of importance has been created. That is the kind of political organisation that I cannot be involved in. The pressure placed upon those of us advocating what I considered reasonable and proportionate changes, including by some within the Officers’ Group and by many members elected on the successful slate, demonstrated a reluctance to embrace meaningful reform. Offers to address concerns only after confidence had already been lost came too late.
Most concerning of all, despite the extraordinary commitment, goodwill and voluntary effort invested by members across the country, local elections are now approaching and, in my experience, nine out of ten residents in Liverpool still have no idea what Your Party is. That should concern every member of the organisation.
To put that into perspective, even Your Party’s own members appear to have little faith or confidence in the project. In Liverpool, my city with a well-known and very proud socialist tradition fewer than 50 members registered to attend the city-wide branch formation meeting. That alone was disappointing but what made it even worse was that only around half of those who registered actually attended.
This outcome should not have come as a surprise. Those in control chose to hold the branch launch online rather than face-to-face and scheduled it for a Sunday morning. It would have been difficult to design a format less likely to maximise attendance or engagement. The result speaks for itself.
This decision has not been made lightly. I would like both to thank and apologise to the members across the North West who placed their trust in me to represent them on the Central Executive Committee. I hope they understand that this decision follows many months of careful reflection.
My socialist values remain entirely unchanged. I continue to be an ardent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and believe the time has come for him to drive meaningful change, swiftly and proportionately. Without decisive action, there is a real risk that other influential and principled socialists, such as Laura Smith, may also choose to resign.
My commitment remains steadfast: to equality, the fair redistribution of wealth, peace, social justice, and standing up for working-class communities and the most vulnerable in our society. These principles continue to guide my politics and will remain at the heart of everything I do.
I now believe my time and energy are best devoted to serving my community as a councillor with Liverpool Community Independents. It was this local party that supported me, enabled me to secure an election with a significant majority and demonstrated what genuine community politics can achieve.
Finally, I wish every ordinary member of Your Party well. They joined in good faith because they believed a different kind of politics was possible. They deserved an organisation worthy of their commitment, energy and optimism. I sincerely hope that one day it becomes one.
In solidarity,
Councillor Sam Gorst
Your Party
North West CEC Representative
Featured image via the Canary












Speaking as an ex-YP member myself, I am genuinely puzzled by this: “I continue to be an ardent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and believe the time has come for him to drive meaningful change, swiftly and proportionately.”
Apparently, Sam, you don’t realise that you are placing your hopes on the very person who has been at the centre of what drove you to resign: ensuring that YP is Labour 2.0, with all of its bureaucracy-based parliamentarianism but “with a more human face”.
I joined Your Party mainly in the hope that we could build a vibrant socialist working-class organisation which could provide a pole of attraction away from the far-right and recruit disillusioned working-class people who could be taken in by the lies of Reform. At the very least I thought YP would urgently set up a network of real branches (starting in the big cities) where we could meet to organise campaigning against Reform and the far-right’s lies in general. Instead we have had the dead weight of bureacratic control-freakery and glacial ‘progress’ with no sense of urgency from the unelected officers such as Karie Murphy, Andrew Jordan et al. This only makes any sense to me if the people at the top of YP (including Corbyn) just want an obedient party of canvassing-fodder who shut up the rest of the time perhaps except when called upon to provide an uncritical audience backdrop for another ‘fantastic’ speech by JC. I have experience of ‘democratic centralism’ and can say that it was certainly preferable to the undemocratic centralism of YP so far.
A strange letter from Sam Gorst. It’s the things that he refers to but does not expand upon that make it very confusing.
Apart from his disability, remember, this is the dude that posted a gravestone graphic saying The Grassroots Left is dead. Charming man, not.
Good scoop S. Box. My piece of only 3 days ago in THE LEFT LANE almost seems like ancient history: https://theleftlane.media/revolt-at-the-top-your-partys-governance-crisis-deepens/
Charlie and Chris above raise the interesting question re: Corbyn and why S. Goughs think he will lead the reform of YP… when YP has been his “baby” for months.
I think a failure of many in YP NOT grasp the essence of Corybnism and Labourism … and why it is a dead end for the working class movement and socialists who want a new world.
Good scoop S. Box. My piece of only 3 days ago in THE LEFT LANE almost seems like ancient history: https://theleftlane.media/revolt-at-the-top-your-partys-governance-crisis-deepens/
Charlie and Chris above raise the interesting question re: Corbyn and why S. Goughs think he will lead the reform of YP… when YP has been his “baby” for months.
I think a failure of many in YP NOT grasp the essence of Corybnism and Labourism … and why it is a dead end for the working class movement and socialists who want a new world.
Only a few weeks ago Sam supported the overturning of conference votes on dual membership & the spirit of a CEC by electing a parliamentary leader. YP had a unique opportunity to draw from the very best, most dedicated & practiced political activist the left has to offer in the UK – building a broad, federative system of participation and democracy. Instead, it chose centralisation without true democracy, personality and sycophancy over policy & ultimately, purged the left causing division in a suicidal attempt by the CEC under Corbyn to maintain control. A losing strategy & an interesting statement, considering, Sam supported these moves.
Looks more like he doesn’t want to go down with a sinking ship & wants to maintain his life in politics for personal reasons. Principles, democracy, socialism – these would have led to different actions and decisions on his part. With the overturning of conference votes, the exclusion of socialists (for the crime of being organized and active, whilst these persons languished in the labor party) & purges destroyed YP many months ago.
There is a lot said there without really saying a lot. Key points to me are: there was a very childish approach by GL and GL linked CEC after failing to dominate the CEC. A group that is equally lacking in listening and which adopts an our way or the highway mentality. That this dispute was pushed out to the wider party members and very personal attacks were made there was no surprise it became difficult to resolve. From circulating entirely biased notes, inciting division and very personally attacking any members who would not agree. I understand why Sam might be disappointed with how a newly formed group might have these kinds of issues, but really? What does anyone expect will happen when you have people who dogmatically refuse to accept what a democratic decision looks like. Show me how bad .mouthing your fellow CEC members and others helps to encourage the majority group to try and work with you.
My anger comes with the way those who failed to gain majority handled that fact. Literally from word go we saw poor communication spreading through YP groups, spread by those associated with GL (including those labelling themselves as Independent but actually having a clear affiliation regardless), which started arguments, fights and a dreadful atmosphere which list countless members. The SWP and GL were rude to local Independents in their determination to dominate the CEC to ensure they would achieve a favourable position in terms of dual membership.
I have spoken with others who also questioned initial set up timing. I suggested they contact and make central aware to try and move. Did Sam do that? Or did he just say nothing and then moan? Because I have seen lots of people m9an when they’ve done nothing to be active in addressing any concerns.
We have a local CEC member who is constantly making snide remarks around whether something she requests is done. Sorry – how unprofessional. Did we elect the wrong people?
Lastly, what exactly is not happening as members wanted. We voted a CEC. We knew we needed party set up but that was delayed by local elections. The SWP and GL tried to bully us into standing candidates before we even had branches set up or the constitutional processes in place. That was a row – again. But there are guidelines set by the Electoral Commission and we need to adhere to those. Being pushed to act by people who were blatantly unaware of these regs was frustrating and caused problems losing members. Again, driven by SWP and GL.
I’m sorry Sam is choosing to resign. I’m sorry that it got this way. But I’m mostly disappointed with Zarah and those members of the CEC who from the outset have been causing dissent. Right back to Zarah’s behaviour at Conference. The notes we saw sent round just 2 months were written ONLY by GL associated individuals and contained phrases like “Surprisingly, this resolution was passed!” You don’t produce notes without the whole group involved. The behaviour of Zarah, GL and those loosely associated with GL has been appalling. This isn’t about meaningful debate. It never was. It was, purely and simply, children throwing their toys out the proverbial pram. This was NOT what any of them were elected for. Those who spread this dissent outside of these meetings, long before any of the issues Sam refers to, need to resign. None of their behaviour has been in best interest of the party and it’s too clear that they would have dissected whatever the decisions being made.