Outraged members of Your Party’s elected executive (CEC) have called for a no-confidence vote in the CEC’s chair and secretary. It is clear that committee members are outraged over the chair’s move to suspend three well-known members last week. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Solma Ahmed and Mel Mullins were suspended for attending a socialist conference – even though Wimborne-Idrissi hadn’t attended.
Your Party: more revelations
In an email leaked to the Canary, one exec member wrote to fellow CEC members:
Dear CEC members
It is with huge regret that I write this email. But I feel strongly that it is needed. I have grown increasingly concerned about the direction, tone and style of our party and our CEC meetings.
There appears to be no opportunity or option to express concern or dissent. I have actually felt that this is a popularity contest with one “side” over an another.
I didn’t join YP and work to get on the CEC for this. As a result I am proposing a vote of no confidence for our chair and our secretary and wish to see them removed from their posts.
In case there was any doubt about the reasons, the same member added in a follow-up:
Hi all
I’ve made my position clear on where I stand. This issue has eaten up my weekend with my husband. I’m now switching off from this chat until Wednesday.
I stand in solidarity with Solma, Mel and ‘Naomi over how they have been treated. I might not agree with them on all aspects or elements, but when you sit on an executive committee that is meant to be able to shape and influence matters and you know you can’t do this, then what are you meant to do.
We’re better than this.
The nitty-gritty of what went on is elaborated in a completely separate complaint by seven CEC members. A Facebook note accompanying the statement reads:
FORMAL COMPLAINT ON THE 3 #yourparty CEC SUSPENSIONS
Tonight at 18.45 seven members of the CEC lodged a formal complaint with Your Party HQ in relation to the suspensions of Solma Ahmed, Melecia Mullings and Naomi Wimborne-idrissi. Please find links to the complaint in the first comment. This is a beautifully written complaint and it is watertight. And it clearly demonstrate in my opinion that Jennifer Forbes chairperson and Dawn Aspinall Secretary have acted outside their jurisdiction and to their complete embarrassment, they haven’t followed YPs own processes, procedures and rules. The next few days will be very interesting to see what sorcery they will try, to wriggle out of this mess that they made. Solidarity with our colleagues and please know that we are all, in our thousands right behind you 
CHECKMATE
The formal complaint, in full, is signed by the three victims of the suspension, other CEC members and Your Party MP Zarah Sultana. It reads (emphases added):
Formal complaint regarding the suspension of three CEC members 5 July 2026
To the Complaints team,
We are writing, as elected members of the Your Party Central Executive Committee (CEC), to raise a formal complaint regarding the suspension of Solma Ahmed, Mel Mullings and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi from the planned CEC meeting on the 5 July. Moreover, we wish to raise concerns about how Your Party is governing itself in accordance with its own Constitution, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct. For the avoidance of doubt, we expect all of these matters to be investigated in full, impartially.
On 3 July 2026, the Chair (Jenn Forbes) and the Secretary (Dawn Aspinall) wrote to three elected members of the committee, Solma Ahmed, Mel Mullings, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, suspending them from attending the CEC meeting on the 5 July. We write to put on record the reasons we believe that this decision is misaligned with the rules the party has adopted. It is also at odds with the most basic principles of democracy and fairness. Disappointingly, its effect has been to exclude one of two Black CEC members, an Asian member and the only Jewish member of the CEC from a meeting that would discuss the party’s anti-racism work – something many of us have been pushing for since March.
As the Party’s highest elected body, the CEC should be held to the highest standards of governance. Members deserve confidence that the rules apply equally to everyone, are followed consistently, and are not applied selectively.
The reasoning provided for the suspension
The email states that the suspensions were made in accordance with “the Chair’s authority under the Central Executive Committee Standing Orders to regulate attendance at meetings where necessary”. Yet, no such authority appears anywhere in the CEC Standing Orders.
Section 10 permits the Chair to “regulate speaking order to ensure balanced participation and efficient conduct of business”. That is speaking order within a meeting, not attendance at one.
Section 15 provides the only mechanism for removing a CEC member from a meeting: “Any removal of CEC members from a meeting shall be determined by the Chair, after due warning, and requires a simple majority to take effect.” Yet, there was no warning or vote.
Section 17 requires an absolute majority of all CEC members, defined as 50%+1, to suspend any clause of the Standing Orders. Again, no such vote has taken place.
The Code of Conduct does not offer further clarity on this new claim around the Chair’s authority. Section 10 reserves temporary suspension to “the CEC” as a body, not to two officers acting alone. Section 11 states: “Members who are subject to investigation must be informed of the allegations against them and given an opportunity to respond.” The Chair and Secretary’s email clearly demonstrates that Solma, Mel and Naomi are subject to investigation, however a sanction was imposed first and the opportunity to respond offered only afterwards. The email itself concedes that “no findings have been made and no conclusions have been reached”, yet a decision was made to suspend them from a CEC meeting representing a change to their elected duties.
So, we ask: Who decided on the suspensions? How was the decision made, and in accordance with what rules? The email does not identify a single clause of the Constitution, Standing Orders or Code of Conduct that any of the three members is alleged to have breached.
The Officer Roles and Responsibilities require the Chair to “Ensure that decisions of the CEC are implemented” and the Secretary to “Ensure compliance with the constitution and standing orders”. With these points in mind, can you clarify that these rules do, indeed, apply to everyone including the Chair and Secretary?
Unequal application
We are aware of complaints about other members of the committee. None were suspended from attending meetings while investigations into those complaints proceeded.
No criticism allowed?
The complaint goes on to address the supposed reason for the suspension, which was supposedly for attending an event organised by people who had criticised the party – and that party leader Jeremy Corbyn is equally culpable if that standard is applied:
The email attempts to justify the suspensions on the basis that publicly available promotional material identified the three members as speakers/participants in an event organised by a group “whose public messaging is openly critical of the Party and its leadership”.
By that same evidentiary standard, publicly available promotional material for Marxism Festival 2026, hosted by the Socialist Workers Party, lists the Parliamentary Leader as a headline speaker. The Socialist Workers Party falls within the list of proscribed groups under dual membership restrictions endorsed by the ruling majority of the party’s own leadership. Its publications have also, at times, been openlly critical of Your Party and its leadership.
So, could you please clarify why some CEC members were suspended for speaking or participating in a socialist group’s conference, while another was alllowed to speak at a proscribed socialist group’s conference without sanction? Is there a new rule that CEC members can speak at conferences organised by proscribed socialist groups, but not unproscribed ones?
To be clear: we do not believe any member should be sanctioned for speaking or participating in events across the socialist movement. The Constitution itself states that “robust democratic debate among members shall be central”, and engagement across the left is ordinary political life.
In fact, it is deeply concerning that a Black CEC member, who is an anti-racism and reparations campaigner, was suspended for giving a five minute solidarity speech. Her speech centred on the need for unity and anti-racist action. Another CEC member was suspended simplly for listening to hear the perspectives of the socialists (including many Your Party members) in attendance. Even worse, in Naomi’s case, she neither spoke at nor attended the conference.
A standard appears to have been invented and then applied to precisely three people.
Missing the anti-racism roundtable discussion
The timing of the suspension has prevented ethnically diverse CEC members from participating in a discussion on Your Party’s planned anti-racism roundtable at the CEC meeting on Sunday 5th July. The suspension excluded one of two Black members, an Asian member and the only Jewish CEC member from that discussion. This raises further concern around the Party’s commitment to anti-racism. One CEC member has repeatedly sent proposals and asked for anti-racism to be an agenda item over recent months, only to have these ignored. The party has also failed to investigate a formal complaint that one of its members directed an anti-Black racist slur at Candi Williams in a prolonged attack, while said member was campaigning for The Many during the CEC election. Despite racism being outlined as a matter of gross misconduct in the Complaints Pack, this complaint has remained uninvestigated for four months. Meanwhile, three ethnically diverse members were suspended within davs, under no named rule.
Demands
It concludes by listing the demands of the complainants – not just for the suspensions to be revoked but for a detailed explanation and accountability – and an apology to the victims:
Finally, we wish to remind the Chair and Secretary that the CEC Code of Conduct states that “Members must treat all individuals with dignity and professionalism”, with inclusivity adopted as a core principle. We must highlight that all of the incidents stated above, and our treatment on the CEC since February, do not reflect this.
Given many CEC members have faced undemocratic expulsions and manoeuvring in the Labour Party, and know the damage this causes (including harming the integrity of the party), it is a shame that similar methods are being replicated.
As such, we must also raise formal concerns about both the Chair and Secretary’s decision-making and potential abuse of power, especially given that the “authority” of the Chair referenced in the suspension email appears nowhere in the CEC Standing Orders.
Your Party was founded on the promise of a member-led, democratic party. With fascism growling at our door, we ask those leading the party to rescind the suspensions immediately, to stop purging socialists and excluding its own CEC members from discussions, and re-focus on uniting to deliver the fightback that workers in this country deserve.
The asks of our complaint
We believe that the matters outlined in this complaint breach numerous provisions of the party’s own Complaints & Discipline procedures, including “abuse of position or authority” (s.2.4), “procedural unfairness” and “failure to follow agreed rules or procedures” (s.2.5).
On this basis, we call on the Complaints team to commence a full investigation and also respond on the following, in writing, by Wednesday 8 July at 10am.
- Rescind the suspensions immediately and cancel the meetings scheduled for Monday 6 July.
- Outline the numbered clause of the CEC Standing Orders under which the Chair has authority to “regulate attendance at meetings where necessary”. In addition, clarify the numbered clause of the CEC Standing Orders which grants the Chair and Secretary alone powers to suspend elected members from a CEC meeting.
- State which clause of the Code of Conduct or Constitution each member is alleged to have breached, which led to this decision, and disclose the evidence relied upon.
- Confirm who made this decision, when it was made, and who was consulted.
- Conduct a full investigation into the Chair’s and Secretary’s decision-making and role in this matter.
- Explain why a sanction was imposed before the members were given any opportunity to respond.
- Publish the criteria that determine whether a member under investigation is suspended from meetings, and account for why those criteria were applied to no other member under investigation.
- Confirm why the same standard was not applied to every representative of this party, including the Parliamentary Leader, who has spoken at events hosted by organisations critical of Your Party.
We look forward to a full and prompt investigation and response on these matters, including the role of the Chair and Secretary. We would also like to remind the Complaints team that the Code of Conduct states, “Investigations should be conducted fairly and impartially” and the Complaints process outlines that no one named in an investigation can investigate, adjudicate or preside over meetings concerning it.
Thank you,
Candi Williams
Megan Clarke
Mel Mullings
Naomi Wimborne-ldrissi
Solma Ahmed
Sophie Wilson
Zarah Sultana
The party does not yet appear to have responded.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.