Inside The Founding Of Jeremy Corbyn's New Party: "End This Horrible Power Struggle"

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

Sienna Rodgers

@siennamarla

The story of Jeremy Corbyn’s new left party began long before Zarah Sultana unilaterally launched it with a social media post, to the ire of several key colleagues.

Indeed it started when the Labour Party was still in opposition. As it became clear that Keir Starmer was never going to allow Corbyn back in, demands grew from his allies for an alternative vehicle for Corbynism. The former Labour leader, however, told his inner circle he thought a new party should not be established by a dozen people in a room empowering themselves to determine a new name and membership system. Instead, structures should first exist on a community level; in this way, a thoroughly democratic outfit would be able to flourish, he told his disciples.

And lo, they got to work creating the necessary conditions.

Momentum co-founder and former Corbyn spokesman James Schneider wrote a short book, Our Bloc: How We Win, calling for an end to defeatism on the left and forecasting futures in which progressives made advances. It was 2022, a time before Reform UK’s success; Black Lives Matter, rent strikes and public support for health workers demanding better pay and conditions were shifting political discourse leftwards. He concluded that Britain’s social movements were crucial and could combine with MPs, councillors and ex-Labour members to form a new party that could “conceivably… perhaps in alliance with the Greens or others… surpass Labour as the main anti-Tory vehicle in one or two electoral cycles”.

While Schneider contributed to the theory, Corbyn’s former chief of staff, Karie Murphy, turned to the practice. With co-directors Pamela Fitzpatrick, a former Labour candidate, and academic Justin Schlosberg, she set up ‘Collective’ in 2023. Today it draws together about 70 organisations, including the Socialist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party and Tusc; independents in Liverpool and Harrow; The Muslim Vote and Just Stop Oil. “If we’ve got to engage everybody and their granny, that’s what will happen, because that’s what he wants,” is how one source describes following Corbyn’s wishes.

“I started to feel uncomfortable with the secretness of it”

The debate over how quickly and openly to found a new party remained unresolved and was a source of tension. Schlosberg quit Collective in the autumn of 2024. “I started to feel uncomfortable with the secretness of it. It was all happening behind closed doors but publicly there was talk of a democratic grassroots movement. I’m an awkward guy and I found that difficult to swallow,” he tells The House. Frustration with the slow pace of the new party’s founding continued. “It languished for a long time in lots of talk,” adds Schlosberg, who partly blames factionalism for the delays.

While campaigning for independents – such as Fitzpatrick who was unsuccessful in Harrow West, Andrew Feinstein who came second in Keir Starmer’s own seat of Holborn and St Pancras, and Leanne Mohamad who was only a few hundred votes short of defeating Wes Streeting in Ilford North – Collective members were told that every hour they spent on the streets would be worthwhile when the new party was launched. They were to be an integral part of it. Collective’s leaders were horrified, then, when the project appeared to be heading in a different direction.

Private meetings in the autumn of 2024 engendered further divisions: attendees spent their time “furiously agreeing with each other” on the basic politics, in the words of one, while disagreeing with the way gatherings were organised. For these summits, Corbyn and senior representatives of Collective such as Murphy were joined by figures including Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman (the ex-Labour politician, forced out of office in 2015 when found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices, beat Labour in 2022 after his ban from standing expired), and Jamie Driscoll, the former North of Tyne mayor who left Labour after he was barred from reselection by the Starmer leadership. Driscoll lost the mayoralty to Labour last year but built up an activist base and soon afterwards started a new party, Majority.

The idea Rahman and Driscoll could join Corbyn in co-leading the new party was floated at this time, according to some. One source involved in the discussions says Driscoll was never considered; the potential leadership group was instead Corbyn, Rahman, Feinstein and Salma Yaqoob, the former Respect leader. Another idea doing the rounds was turning Aspire, Rahman’s Tower Hamlets outfit, into a national party. Meanwhile, Driscoll wrote documents – a Memorandum of Understanding, “MoU” (now the name of the company that controls the new party’s data); and “The Axioms” – to be used as a roadmap for the party. Collective representatives sought to have his papers rejected.

The question of whether Corbyn should co-lead the party with Sultana came to a head at the start of July, in an online meeting of the “organising committee” – a disparate group including retired trade union general secretaries, former Labour officials, independent councillors and climate activists, convened by Yaqoob.

Advocates of Corbyn-Sultana liked the idea of such a balanced ticket: old, new; white man, woman of colour; London, not-London. “Of course it should have joint leadership. The idea Jeremy could run in the 2029 election saying, ‘I’ll be PM at the age of 80’, is not credible,” says one proponent.

Those closest to Corbyn saw it very differently: as an opportunistic takeover designed to stifle his influence – and theirs. “Jeremy is 76. I don’t know what he’s going to do, but whatever he does is not going to be long-term,” argues an ally – but they maintain that he should be interim leader. This is because “only Jeremy can bring the mass membership to this party that it needs, otherwise it’ll just die”, and because Sultana would be too obviously well-positioned as the full-term, permanent leader if she serves as co-leader first, which would be undemocratic.

Throughout this period, Corbyn himself was accused of indecision – by all sides. His allies insist he was clearer than ever in the critical July meeting, though: he made it clear he did not want to pass a motion backing the joint leadership model. Like Collective representatives, he refused to vote on the motion supporting it. Even so, a majority voted in favour. Sultana soon announced she was leaving the Labour Party to “co-lead the founding of a new party” with Corbyn.

All hell broke loose. Collective members quit and rows over WhatsApp leaked. Corbyn, his key allies and crucially his wife Laura were said to be furious. “Zarah clearly didn’t know Jeremy like those of us who’ve worked with him for a long time, because there’s nobody more stubborn than Jeremy,” remarks one source.

Some allies say he felt used by people who dislike the way he does things but are happy to employ his personal popularity to draw in supporters. “They thought they could use Jeremy’s name and profile to get the sign-ups that they wanted, but they had no intention of him actually having any agency in all of this,” a different ally complains.

“There’s a small number of people... who have not yet come to terms with the fact that we lost in 2019”

Corbyn initially released a cautious statement notably omitting any mention of co-leadership; three weeks later, he published a joint statement with Sultana launching “Your Party”. Supporters were invited to sign up to a mailing list, which hundreds of thousands duly did. Though not purposefully designed this way, insiders were delighted when attention shifted from the organisational committee chaos to whether it is genuinely called Your Party.

While Corbyn is said to favour this interim name, Sultana does not, preferring “The Left Party”; one Corbyn ally meanwhile proposes “The People’s Party”. The disagreement illustrates a wider debate: to what extent the new party should appeal to Reform voters. (Fitzpatrick argues they must, telling The House: “It would be wrong to assume that everybody’s just suddenly racist. What they are is angry at establishment parties who have let them down.”)

The permanent name will be decided ultimately by members via a vote at the inaugural conference, for which there is no definitive timeline. November is one working assumption; while some doubt this deadline is logistically possible, The House understands there are no plans to delay until next year. (One source says it needs be sooner rather than later to “end this horrible power struggle”.) It is anticipated the location will not be London, and hybrid arrangements are expected to accommodate a huge membership. First, a system to allow supporters to become members will need to be launched to determine who attends the crucial meeting.

Rather than co-leading the founding of the new party, Corbyn and Sultana are overseeing it along with the four other Independent Alliance MPs. (This is also controversial, with some complaining that the primacy of parliamentarians indicates a ‘top-down’ approach.) They have appointed a low-profile working group to deal with the logistics.

It has taken years to reach the point of organising a conference, and yet the challenges ahead have barely been brought into focus. 

There are few fundamental political differences between Corbyn and Sultana. There is a clash instead of style, but this could well be used to their advantage. The conflicts are many when it comes to the wider group involved, however.

Claims of bullying and falsified minutes have been made. Some of Corbyn’s former staffers – part of the ‘15 to ‘19 “Loto” (leader of the opposition’s office) group – are accused of controlling behaviour and of a failure to acknowledge reality. “There’s a small number of people with some influence, but particularly close to Jeremy, who have not yet come to terms with the fact that we lost in 2019. They think that if they were allowed somehow to repeat this, it will mean that was all a rip-roaring success,” says one critic.

Sultana’s team, in turn, is charged with taking criticism badly, of failing to acknowledge her inexperience, and of behaving “outrageously” with the initial surprise statement. Her critics hoped to dial down this row, after she accused those briefing against her of misogyny and Islamophobia, but over the summer tensions became more pronounced in public.

In an interview with the New Left Review, Sultana criticised Corbyn’s Labour for “capitulating” to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism – a painful reminder for ex-Loto staffers of the torturous summer of 2018, which was dominated by arguments over the move and culminated in Corbyn being defeated. In declaring she was “proudly” an anti-Zionist – a label Corbyn has steered clear of for himself – Sultana drew a clear dividing line. The former Labour leader afterwards remarked that it “wasn’t really necessary for her to bring all that up”. Allies of his complain that while he must defend the positions he takes to a broad audience, Sultana does not, as she tends to shun the mainstream media.

Those involved in the new party have long foreseen internal fights over Palestine (between those who favour a two-state solution and backers of a single Palestinian state) and Ukraine (The House hears former PCS union head Mark Serwotka was rebuked by others for his full-throated support of Ukraine in the war against Vladimir Putin).

“I love George Galloway, but I hate his politics”

The question of breadth is incapsulated by George Galloway, who has announced that his Workers Party will seek to affiliate to the new party. There are already links: James Giles, a former campaign manager for Galloway, is chief of staff to Independent MP Ayoub Khan; and Workers Party members were accepted in Collective. Senior figures are somewhat wary of the leader’s own views, however. “I love George Galloway, but I hate his politics,” says one, who predicts nonetheless that many of his “decent” members will join and be welcomed “with open arms”.

“I’ve got absolutely nothing against the Workers Party at all. In fact, they were quite good at working with the Collective during the general election; about not standing candidates where we had good candidates. Equally, there’s no point inviting groups in that are not going to have the same views on quite fundamental issues,” Fitzpatrick tells The House.

Galloway says trans women are not women, and backs a “stop the boats and stop the wars” line. “His policies don’t really align with a left party,” Fitzpatrick concludes. “I don’t want to be part of a new party that’s going to have slogans like ‘stop the boats’.”

“You have to be able to accept a broad church,” counters Schlosberg, who says a left-wing case against immigration does exist. “The party should accommodate George Galloway’s persuasion and people committed to socialist principles but who also still believe in a two-state solution process. They don’t have to be best friends, but they need to learn to sit under the same roof.”

There have already been differences among the Independent Alliance MPs on issues such as private school fees and trans identities. To the annoyance of some, Blackburn MP Adnan Hussain has repeatedly opened this up for public discussion via posts on X, writing that “Muslims tend to be socially conservative” and “most sane people want to be segregated in a toilet”. A Corbyn ally admits this makes for “messy conflict”, but insists the left is capable of embracing those who oppose transphobia while not subscribing to slogans such as “trans women are women”.

Others are more sceptical. “There’s going to be a lot of tensions with the party members: 100,000 very young, socially liberal, leftist activists are your base, then most of your parliamentarians are community figures from Birmingham or Bradford. It’s what happened in Respect but on a much bigger scale,” says one source.

The proposed answer to these tensions is that the new party will be unlike existing ones, with less focus on party discipline and more on localised democracy. Elected representatives will be accountable to their constituents.

But how will this combine with internal democracy? Already, Bennite demands such as mandatory reselections (when sitting MPs face a full selection in their local party before every election) have surfaced. Some argue these rules are more suited to Labour than the new party, with one asking: “How does that work when MPs don’t owe anything to the party? Adnan doesn’t need a load of activists to be bussed in from London to win.”

Indeed, there are not only political distinctions but many strategic ones. Sole leader, co-leaders, leader/deputy, leader/chair or a leadership team? Amid the tensions, some in the Corbyn camp suspect Sultana’s team is now less interested in co-leadership and has begun to set out her stall for a leadership contest, with a plan to win by outflanking Corbyn from the left.

A pact with the Greens, now led by eco-populist Zack Polanski? Corbyn reckons the discussion is premature, and Fitzpatrick warns against an alliance with a “more liberal” party, while figures such as Driscoll – understood to be on good terms with Polanski – believe such a pact is crucial. Campaign group We Deserve Better, linked to Owen Jones and staffed by former Labour left activists, hopes to persuade the Greens and the new party to forge one. It wants to take inspiration from the Nouveau Front Populaire alliance, which was hugely successful in the 2024 French parliamentary elections.

“There will be a lot of elbows: who gets to put forward motions, who gets to chair sessions, who gets to vote”

At the all-important conference and ahead of it, key questions of internal democracy must be settled. Will it be governed by OMOV (one-member-one-vote) or a delegate system? Most favour the former, hoping it will limit dominance by one faction or another. What about the policy-making process? Driscoll’s Majority has no policies beyond its manifesto; the new party may do the same, though ex-Labour members are used to busily drafting and voting on motions locally.

“There will be a lot of elbows: who gets to put forward motions, who gets to chair sessions, who gets to vote. People will be trying to make sure they’re in position for being selected as the parliamentary candidate in wherever they think they might win,” predicts one figure involved in the founding.

Undeterred by the fact no new party really exists yet, two factions have already been announced – the Democratic Socialists (understood by The House to be relative outsiders, they are urging the party to be “wholly democratic”, and “unitary”, not a loose alliance) and the Democratic Bloc (Sultana-aligned activists who have drafted a constitutional plan for the party).

The prospect of the new party attracting a significant amount of money intensifies debate. Insiders believe funds will largely come from membership, with one estimating that a 300,000-member party would bring in about £10m a year.

With Labour’s historic union link frayed, trade union funding is being eyed. Discussions are underway. Some supportive unions – such as PCS and the NEU – are not expected to affiliate to the new party, but others could be in contention – the Bakers’ Union, BFAWU, is seen as likely, and possibly the RMT (though some say its leadership got its fingers burnt with Tusc, co-founded by the late Bob Crow, and the failed ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign led by former general secretary Mick Lynch).

The big prize would be Unite, yet Sharon Graham is seen as having difficult relationships with both the “Loto” side of the new party, due to its links to Len McCluskey, and the Sultana side, as the Coventry MP was accused of not backing local bin strikers strongly enough in 2022.

Despite the challenges, the founders are ambitious – and insist their optimism for the long-term prospects of the new party are well-founded. They hope to capitalise on votes at 16 – confirmed as government policy just before Corbyn and Sultana released their “Your Party” statement – which is seen as a gift both to them and Reform. One source jokes that they even hesitated to announce the launch because they thought Labour had to be laying some sort of trap.

One of the senior figures involved says they would measure success by whether the new party wins power somewhere before 2029, and wins at least a dozen seats at the next general election. Most say they aim, realistically, to secure up to 40 MPs. Streeting’s seat is seen as a likely win for Mohamad, and it is hoped Feinstein could come close to unseating Starmer himself.

There are also hopes for the regular defection of Labour MPs, once the new party proves its professionalism and the realisation sets in that there is no safe Labour seat. There are significant barriers to getting MPs to cross the floor, however; old friends such as John McDonnell are staying put. Indeed, most think even Corbyn himself would still rather be a Labour member if he had the choice.

But there is clear emphasis on extra-parliamentary ambitions too. A spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn says: “Our ambition is simple: to redistribute wealth and power so that everyone can live in dignity. That means winning power not just in Parliament, but in our workplaces and in our neighbourhoods. That is how you transform a moment into a movement that can endure – and fight – for generations to come.”

Driscoll tells The House: “There’s a dire need for a new party. It has to be a party of the left, but not for the left. If it is truly open and democratic, and voices people’s day-to-day concerns, it will make rapid progress in council elections.

“Even Labour insiders tell me they expect to lose all but one North East council in next year’s local elections. With Majority, we’ve built a progressive alliance with Greens, ex-Lib Dems, and more importantly food poverty campaigners, public transport users, people defending the parks from cuts. We’ll be standing in every seat in Newcastle in the 2026 all-out elections.

“Only when the public see it in power will they make their mind up nationally. The vast majority of people like the sound of ending poverty, restoring public services, but they’ve been sold false promises before. If we deliver, it’s a slingshot to the 2029 general election.”

Labour has opened a vast space to its left that is only partly filled by the Greens, say senior figures, and the legacy of its Corbyn years ended in failure but aroused huge enthusiasm. With the arrival of five-party politics in England, six-party in Scotland and Wales, the calculation of what is possible under first-past-the-post has changed.

“It has every chance of success,” remarks a senior source. “Could it fuck it all up? That, too, is possible.” 

Related

Union Boss Tells Labour There Is Clear Public Support For Wealth Taxes

By Nadine Batchelor-Hunt

04 Sep