The Truth Behind Your Party’s “Rogue Founders” Story

The Guardian’s Back at It: Manufacturing Your Party’s “Civil War

Remember that so-called bastion of left-wing journalism, the guardian of the working class, that somehow turned into a liberal mouthpiece for the metropolitan middle class? The same Guardian that helped sabotage the Corbyn years and tossed Julian Assange under the bus? Well, here we go again.

This time, they’re peddling another “exclusive,” claiming that Your Party, the fledgling left-wing movement linked to Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, is preparing to sue three of its own founders. Conveniently sourced, of course, from anonymous insiders and screenshots.

According to the Guardian, “Your Party is launching legal action against three of its ‘rogue’ founders”, Andrew Feinstein, Jamie Driscoll and Beth Winter, to recover £800,000 in donations and supporter data held by their company, MoU Operations Ltd.

The paper paints a picture of betrayal and internal chaos, quoting “figures close to the party” who accuse the trio of having “gone rogue” and “holding supporters’ funds to ransom.” The implication is clear: here’s the left tearing itself apart, again.

But let’s pause the melodrama…

Feinstein, Driscoll and Winter, three of the most respected figures in the socialist movement, have flatly rejected the allegations, calling them “factually incorrect and frankly nonsense.” They’ve now released a detailed statement clarifying the situation and their intentions.

The Statement from Jamie Driscoll, Beth Winter and Andrew Feinstein

---

“We would like to announce our resignations as directors of MOU Operations Ltd (MOU).

We set up MOU on April 2nd 2025 to support the creation of an alliance of progressive community independents, with Jeremy Corbyn playing a central role in its formation. Since that time, the nature of the project has changed significantly, as have the people involved.

We are not founders of Your Party. We’ve had no part in any decisions concerning Your Party since before its creation was announced in July. We set up no portals, donations pages, membership systems, or anything else. We have not been involved in any of the founding processes in any way. The role of holding donations was thrust upon us. The company we are responsible for has repeatedly been used without our agreement.

From the day of the launch we have raised concerns about the lack of agreement and appropriate governance. We asked the Your Party leadership to meet with us to resolve it. We have wanted to hand everything over from the beginning. Only one of their directors agreed.

After the confusing launch of two membership systems, on the 18th and 24th September, neither of which we had any part in, we faced the added complication of MOU holding data and membership records.

We urgently took legal advice, and on 29th September we wrote to the Your Party leadership asking them to take complete ownership and control of MOU. This would have handed over all data, money and everything else to Your Party. Five of the six MPs declined.

Your Party demanded control of MOU’s assets without accepting control of MOU itself. This would have left us to deal with the liabilities and costs from the confused membership launches. We cannot accept personal liability for actions that were taken without our knowledge or approval, nor could we agree to a proposed ‘resolution’ that put MOU at risk of having liabilities exceeding its assets. We explained in detail why these proposals were not tenable. We were told that refusal “will result in public condemnation.”

We have tried many times to hand over everything to Your Party, lock, stock and barrel. You cannot simply hand over data without following GDPR regulations.

Not everyone understands company law or GDPR. In simple terms, we offered to hand over ownership to Your Party, and make the six Your Party MPs directors in our place, giving them full control. Only one of the six was willing to agree.

We have been extraordinarily patient, and tried to resolve this quietly behind the scenes. Your Party have claimed in emails and social media statements that we delayed the data transfer. We repeatedly asked them to stop making factually incorrect claims of this nature. They gave hostile briefings to journalists. We behaved with integrity.

Zarah Sultana has agreed to become the sole member and director of MOU, with a commitment to use the resources for Your Party, as was always intended. We will resign immediately once the legal formalities have been completed. We will have no further involvement with MOU. We want nothing for ourselves. We have taken no money or benefit in kind.”

Jamie Driscoll, Beth Winter, Andrew Feinstein

---

A Manufactured Rift, Amplified by the Establishment Press

In other words, the story the Guardian ran with, a dramatic tale of “rogue founders”, now looks far more like a dispute over process, data protection and liability than some great act of betrayal.

Feinstein, Driscoll and Winter make it clear they were not responsible for launching donation pages, managing member data, or setting up Your Party’s infrastructure. They insist they have acted transparently throughout and even offered to hand over full control of MoU, including all funds and data, as long as the new party took formal legal responsibility.

It’s a shame that an inaccurate statement has been leaked to a former Sun journalist. The MOU directors were already in the process of transferring ownership and all of the resources of MOU, and that legal process is now nearing completion.

I am taking on the role of director…

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) October 29, 2025

That’s not obstructionism. That’s basic due diligence.

Yet rather than explaining this nuance, the Guardian chose once again to frame the grassroots left as disorganised, fractious and untrustworthy, a tired narrative that neatly serves the establishment’s interests.

The irony is hard to miss: the same outlet that cheerfully helped dismantle the last real socialist project inside Labour now portrays itself as the guardian of integrity in a movement it clearly fears might rise again.

Until the full facts are laid bare, this looks like another carefully staged hit piece, a reminder that whenever a genuine working-class movement starts to gain momentum, the liberal press can always be relied upon to aim for its knees.

For a press that pretends to love accountability, the Guardian has an uncanny knack for punching down. It’s not the left eating itself, it’s the media feeding on it.