A party built by big personalities has just made a bold decision: neither of its star figures will be in charge. Instead, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s new left-wing project is taking a very different route on leadership—and that choice could either calm tensions or store up even bigger battles for later.
At its founding conference in Liverpool, the new party backed by Corbyn and Sultana decided it will not have a single, traditional leader at all. Rather than setting up a head-to-head leadership contest between the two, members voted to be guided by a panel of representatives, sidestepping what could have become a highly charged and divisive internal election. But here’s where it gets controversial: that alternative model only scraped through with a narrow majority.
According to the agreed structure, the party will be run by a Central Executive Committee (CEC) made up of 16 people who are not sitting politicians, all chosen directly by the membership. The aim is to embody a “bottom-up” approach, where grassroots members—not professional political operators—are meant to hold real power over strategy, staffing, and resources. Supporters argue this offers a more democratic, accountable, member-led organisation, in stark contrast to what they see as an out‑of‑touch political class in Westminster that serves corporate and billionaire interests rather than ordinary communities.
One of the most striking—and potentially divisive—decisions concerns party membership rules. Delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a system that allows members to keep their memberships in other left-wing groups, including organisations like the Socialist Workers Party. This vote came just days after several people were expelled for being involved with that very group, a move that had already triggered anger and accusations of hypocrisy. And this is the part most people miss: the party is trying to be both open to the wider left and selective about which groups align with its values, which could lead to messy arguments about where exactly that line is drawn.
Under the new rules, the CEC will have the authority to exclude organisations it believes conflict with the party’s principles, even while permitting dual membership in general. That gives the committee significant gatekeeping power over who and what is considered compatible with the project. At the same time, a so‑called “democratic whip” will allow the CEC to instruct MPs on how to vote on key issues, while leaving it to local branches to decide what sanctions—if any—should apply when an MP breaks ranks. In theory, that balances central direction with local control; in practice, it could become a flashpoint whenever an MP rebels on a controversial vote.
The founding conference is also expected to end months of speculation by finally revealing the party’s official name. Members have been balloted on a shortlist including “Your Party”, “Our Party”, “Popular Alliance”, and “For The Many”, with Corbyn scheduled to close the event by announcing the winning choice. The branding decision matters: each name carries a slightly different message about ownership, identity, and who the party is really for—ordinary members, a wider movement, or a populist alliance.
Behind these structural choices sit months of internal friction and mistrust. Since the group was launched in a surprise move in July, Sultana has frequently been at odds with party officials and others involved in building the organisation. Those tensions burst into the open when two MPs, Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed, resigned from the core team overseeing the project, less than a month before the founding conference. They cited what they described as a “toxic culture”, particularly in relation to Muslim men, suggesting that the internal environment conflicts with the inclusive, grassroots image the party is trying to project.
Before stepping away, Hussain and Mohamed co‑signed a letter raising serious concerns about Sultana’s handling of party finances. They criticised her for not transferring an estimated £800,000 in donations raised under the “Your Party” banner, which they said was being held by a company she controls. In response, Sultana transferred £600,000 and insisted that the remaining funds would be moved as soon as the legal details were finalised. Even so, questions about transparency and trust around money are likely to linger, especially in a party that claims to be member‑led and accountable.
Sultana’s relationship with the new party became even more complicated when she chose not to attend the opening day of the Liverpool conference. Her absence was a protest against the recent expulsions of members who had kept ties to other left-wing groups, like the Socialist Workers Party. Ironically, the conference then went on to back her preferred policy by a large margin—allowing dual membership in the future—effectively overturning the stance that had prompted those expulsions in the first place. That reversal will delight some who want a broad left alliance, but it may anger those who feel rules were applied harshly and then quietly relaxed.
Under the freshly adopted constitution, a separate grouping known as the Independent Alliance of MPs—currently made up of Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, and Shockat Adam—will help oversee the selection of candidates for next year’s local elections. They will share that responsibility with a members’ oversight committee, whose members will be chosen at random from the wider party. On paper, this mix is designed to combine political experience with genuine grassroots input. Yet it is still unclear whether Sultana herself will hold any formal role in choosing candidates, adding another layer of uncertainty about her long‑term influence in the project.
Supporters of the new arrangement see all these moves—the multi-person leadership, dual membership, and member‑driven structures—as proof that the party really is trying to “do politics differently.” Critics might counter that avoiding a leadership race simply postpones inevitable clashes between high‑profile figures and may leave voters unsure who is truly accountable. So here’s the big question: does this kind of panel‑led, multi‑membership, bottom‑up model represent the future of the left, or is it a recipe for confusion and factionalism?
What do you think: is ditching a single leader and embracing dual memberships a bold step toward real democracy, or a risky experiment that will fall apart under pressure? Do you trust structures like a powerful executive committee and a “democratic whip” to keep MPs in line without stifling debate? Share whether you agree or disagree with this direction—and why—in the comments. This is exactly the kind of political experiment that could reshape the left… or become a warning story for the next generation of activists.
