Overcoming problems

Engaging with undemocratic structures

Act with honesty and transparency with an intent for establishing proto-democracy for YP. Consider a stepped approach, whilst understanding where your boundaries are at each stage.

1. Engage in good faith - develop tactics to put democracy on meeting agendas which could involve engaging with any established or self-appointed committee and/or making interventions in branch meetings. The constitution guide includes examples of structures and motions.
2. Advocate for transparency on political affiliations - these should be declared when a person speaks in a meeting and included on the name when in online meetings.
3. Form a caucus within the undemocratic structure - creating opportunities to mobilise supporters and practice better democracy that you demand of the main group
4. Form a faction - a political focus of comrades that stand for democracy, where you set up a Proto-Branch as a faction that reflects the values you wish to practice. No YP group is more, nor less sovereign than the next group.

Read the guide on factions, caucuses and fractions [link needed]

Dealing with transphobia (and other forms of oppression)

Open group chats and meetings can sometimes attract individuals whose interventions undermine inclusive discussion. In recent years, this has included people advancing transphobic arguments, often emboldened by court rulings and political shifts. Some of these individuals present as legally savvy and well-resourced, so while this note is not legal advice, the following points may help in managing such situations.

It’s important to distinguish between holding a belief and imposing it on others. Employment Tribunal decisions have confirmed that “Gender Critical” views amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Excluding someone simply because they hold those views could be discriminatory. The line is crossed when these beliefs are used to deny the existence or rights of others, or to dominate discussion in ways that exclude, harass, or silence fellow participants.

Focus on behaviours, not beliefs. Consider:

• Are they participating in good-faith discussion?
• Are their contributions relevant to the topic at hand?
• Are they using the space to promote transphobia?
• Are they engaging in harassing or demeaning behaviour?
• Are they denying the existence, dignity, or rights of others in the group?
• Are they leveraging an existing platform or authority to impose their views?
• Have complaints been raised about them?
• Are they preventing constructive discussion from taking place?

Possible graduated responses include:

• Having a one-to-one conversation to explore their perspective and make clear the group’s expectations.
• Temporarily muting or removing them from the chat as a “time out”.
• Permanently removing them if behaviour does not improve.

Whatever approach you take, ensure there is a clear rationale, keep records, and make decisions collectively wherever possible. Emphasise that this is about managing the health of a group chat or meeting for an organisation that doesn't exist yet. You're not making judgements on party membership or wider participation in political activity.

Focussing minds on the key national debates

Comrades will have signed up to YP for many reasons and motivations. It's likely that many won't be motivated nor interested in some of the detail of the key national debates, instead feel more motivated around specific policies. Within a democratic structure it's not always possible nor realistic to get the key debates on meeting agendas. A key aim at these early stages should focus on building a collective consciousness with your group, and through that process you can pivot discussions to key debates. For example, if comrades form policy ideas around the NHS, the discussion could pivot towards how are these ideas fed into the national party, prompting discussion around how democracy and conferences could work.

Understanding the position and tactics of political groups

YP is a great opportunity to engage people new to politics. Political groups are understandably enthusiastic to recruit new members and also form policy positions on their interactions with YP. Not all groups have policy positions in the public domain. This list attempts to summarise what comrades are hearing from some of the more prominent political groups.

• rs21 has two policy motions, that broadly advocate for a socialist, mass democratic party:
  • Engaging a new left party
  • For a new left party as soon as possible
• SWP are heavily promoting their protests, stalls and campaigns, including through front groups like Stand up to Racism. They deflect discussion about forming democratic structures and instead argue that it's too early for YP to form democratic structures and the focus should be about getting out into communities so that anything elected in the future is more representative. It's unclear if the intent of this is sincere, or if SWP have a policy position to recruit new members directly on a presumption of later affiliating to YP. In arguing against proto-democracy, it shuts down any debate whatsoever for YP members and appears that SWP is likely advocating for a federal affiliation model with YP.
• SP appear to be advocating for a federal structure, akin to TUSC 2.0, with heavy input from trade unions. They will argue for a "workers' party" rather than a "left or socialist party". The TUSC model implies a desire for standing in the Spring 2026 local elections because of the pre-existing TUSC infrastructure and links with trade union bureucracies.
• Other more local groups tend for be advocating for federal structures as well, including some that advocate for Labour 2.0 structures but more left wing.