On 26 February, Your Party members decided who would sit on the Central Executive Committee (CEC). The election results rolled in just before lunchtime. Jeremy Corbyn’s team ‘The Many‘ secured 14 successful candidates, giving them a majority on the CEC. In contrast, Zarah Sultana’s ‘Grassroots Left’ saw 7 gain a seat with three independent candidates completing the CEC.
However, questions remain about what this means for the ‘peoples party’. Will this mark a line in the sand and prompt genuine efforts to work together? Or will factionalism double down, leaving sore winners and resentful losers across the political divide?
Jeremy Corbyn, his slate, and his team have faced considerable member backlash for controlling and divisive tactics that have turned what was once an exciting project into a toxic, polarised environment. After all, not letting people have a say or seat at the table is bound to increase suspicion and provoke defensive actions from those blocked out. This resulted in accusations of toxic ‘Labour Right’ tactics being rampantly deployed in a fight for a small few to control the process.
The Many must remember that cheering a victory for one faction will sting those who backed the other. That’s hardly a recipe for bringing people together.
Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn and @TheManyYP for a clear victory in the CEC elections!
Your Party can now move forward to build a mass party that defends the interests of the many, not the few. pic.twitter.com/OKxW2kCk0u— Socialist Action (@SocialistAct) February 26, 2026
Party politics and factionalism putting off members
Despite the party having had a reported interest of 800,000 people following the announcement from its co-founders last July, that transpired to approximately just 60k members at the time of its inaugural conference. The announcement of results today informed that membership now lies at 40,985, with just 25,347 votes received to decide the party’s pivotal direction of travel. Not a great indictment on how either leader has read the room, with factional games undeniably having a role in the loss of enthusiasm among the wider public.
For instance, losing nearly 20k members after the conference could either be due to the public fighting and briefing, in which both sides were at odds with each other. Corbyn’s team deplorably chose to brief the right-wing press about ‘communist takeovers’ prior to it commencing, drawing accusations of similarities shared with the ‘Labour Right’ intrinsic in his downfall.
Unfortunately, this has highlighted that public leaders have not sufficiently taken note of public feeling: and that is that there is no time to waste fighting with each other with the far-right at our door.
One Your Party member despairingly told us:
How can we win people over from the far-right if we can’t even navigate disagreement together on the left?
At the Canary, we have faced relentless abuse and criticism for insisting on transparency and holding those in power to account. Yet we have refused to back down, because we believe all power deserves scrutiny — not just the power of those we oppose. After all, power corrupts, and humans are fallible.
The left must get it together
From the very outset, members made it abundantly clear that one of the most important factors in building this party was the safeguarding of democracy. When so many are left feeling unheard and sidelined, this party was meant to be the salve that healed that wound by allowing all engaged to be heard. This led to pushes for a member-led democratic party, which was overwhelmingly voted through at conference.
However, since then we have received multiple reports supported by verified evidence which informed the suggestion that Corbyn and his team were more than happy to subvert democracy for their own desire to control the party building process. Considering reports from the outset of Sultana being blocked from contributing equally, seemingly preferring for her to be seen and not heard, a significant proportion of members have raised alarm over patriarchal ‘sexist man club’ attitudes inherent in The Many.
We wrote earlier this year about Corbyn ally Karie Murphy’s shady tactics to fix the odds, saying:
Originally, members of Your Party made it clear that they wanted an elected oversight committee formed ahead of the CEC election. Supporters argued that this approach would make committee members more representative of the entire membership, bridging divides and differences of opinion.
However, figures on The Many slate allegedly objected, instead pushing for – and implementing – a sortition process that selected five members to carry out crucial oversight. Given the public bickering and clashes driven by strong views on both sides, members generally accepted this compromise as fair in principle.
However, it now appears that principle and process are not the priority for those gearing the party’s democratic processes.
The Canary has been told that Karie Murphy excluded one sortition member from being involved in the Your Party committee, literally blocking her number and ignoring her very existence.
NEW: Jeremy Corbyn set to become parliamentary leader of Your Party after his slate won 14 seats to 7 on the central executive committee
— Sienna Rodgers (@siennamarla) February 26, 2026
Corbyn to be Your Party’s ‘parliamentary leader’
It is being widely reported that the significant TM-majority on the CEC will elect Corbyn to be Your Party’s representative in Parliament. This undoubtedly raises questions as to whether this victory for TM will be used to force a sole leadership model that members overwhelmingly voted down at its inaugural conference. It equally raises fresh concerns that what will unfold now will be akin to the ‘Labour Right’ jostling for power, excluding and sabotaging others in the process, to create a party in their image alone.
Not too unlike the warnings we heard from Sultana that a Labour Party 2.0 was awaiting if her slate and aligned independents didn’t win a majority.
An unavoidable dichotomy has surfaced: if members voted for collective leadership to ensure that decisions are made fairly with no centralised power in the hands of one person, it’s hard now to see how that really can be delivered upon. Those aligned solely with Corbyn’s TM slate have made it abundantly clear they wanted sole leadership from the start. Equally, they have made clear in practice that they won’t work in tandem with people who aren’t on ‘their team’. Now they have control of the party’s decisions, it’s impossible to avoid the optics of the birth of a ‘Labour 2.0’.
This is especially true when we consider the briefing and ‘attack dog’ sabotage tactics that belong firmly in the Labour right playbook.
Undoubtedly to cause frustration among members, we have a sole leader with a majority overseeing the foundational processes of a party formed on a collective leadership model. Square peg, round hole springs to mind.
Something that it appears Zarah Sultana alludes to in her public statement after the results were announced:
In November, Your Party conference voted for a collective leadership.
From today, that work begins. Congratulations to everyone elected to the CEC! pic.twitter.com/1jOaDL616y
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 26, 2026
Change comes from uplifting people, not suppressing them
In conclusion, Corbyn and those aligned with him would do well to remember that the vast majority of the public watching this unfold are likely more emotionally mature than those in powerful, privileged positions. Equally, Sultana’s team will have a tricky line to tread, yet again, where they maintain scrutiny on how much power the members actually have, whilst not being seen to be the ’cause’ of people losing interest.
The vast majority see that we have to hear each other to find a way forward, not shut the door from the very outset if we don’t like what we’re hearing. This has unsurprisingly put people off and hindered the movement as a whole.
Nevertheless, Corbyn and his allies have achieved victory and the ‘control’ that comes with it. We hope they choose now to listen to all of us without fear or favour. How he chooses to wield this control will have wide-reaching consequences for YP members, and the viability for the party to truly compete against the rising far-right.
Featured image via the Canary













Er membership did NOT drop by 20,000 since the conference.
Membership is almost 60,000
but 41,000 are verified members
Which means they went through an extra level of security …
and 61% of those voted 25,350
So listen back to the announcement and print a correction please
“The announcement of results today informed that membership now lies at 40,985, with just 25,347 votes received to decide the party’s pivotal direction of travel. Not a great indictment on how either leader has read the room, with factional games undeniably having a role in the loss of enthusiasm among the wider public. ”
As Your Party has pointed out (as I’m sure the author of this piece knows but decided not to mention) “For comparison, that [number of votes cast] beats the number who voted in the Green Party’s 2025 leadership election won by Zack Polanski by more than a thousand.”
Perhaps attention should be drawn (once again) to an article in The Green Light blog earlier this year on democracy within the Green party :
“In practical terms, and as evidenced in our two blog posts covering the Autumn 2025 Conference in Bournemouth, this means that 1600 self-appointed members out of 50000 – half with less than 2 months membership – approved key reports, major policy reviews, and voted for new policies and organisational changes with no accountability to anyone but themselves.
“Conference is not a delegates event, nor do attendees have to be known to their elected Local Party officers. They are free wheeling individuals with enormous power.”
It continues : “As a result, and with the added power of What’s app, Instagram and other social media platforms – private and public – the Party has become so dysfuntional that it has left itself vulnerable to the risk of mass entrism. Its governance has also been wholly captured by an estimated 400 Critical Social Justice (CSJ) activists who have little interest or commitment to ecological concerns. However they have become experts in the manipulation of the Party’s arcance policy decision making process and have become masters in the use of the disciplinary procedures to eliminate opposition to their post-modernist/ identity politics ideology. ”
This is from a Green blog, remember. I cant imagine why the Canary has never adressed this issue.
https://thegreenlight.blog/2026/01/27/one-member-one-vote-is-an-illusion-of-democracy/
”
“
And yet the greens just beat labour in a by election so seem to be doing quite well…
Although The Canary publishes some excellent and informative articles, its reporting on Your Party is horribly reminiscent of the unmentionable Guardian’s reporting on Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. Almost from the off your reports and op-ed pieces wrt Your Party have been all about possible splits and told from negative angles – exactly what the Guardian did with Corbyn’s Labour. This is in contrast to your rather sycophantic reporting on the Green Party whose leader is getting to look more and more like a uni-party clone with his wobbles on Zionism. and willingness to go to war for the Neocons’ NATO. If you just want to be a Green Party paper that is fine, but please say so. Meanwhile, more reporting on and less sniping about Your Party, please.
It seems that Corbyn’s supporters are now engaging in Whatabboutery. If only 41,000 could be verified it means that there are 20,000 who aren’t verified and therefore not members.
As a Your Party member, just, then if Corbyn is made leader then they should also profer an olive branch to Zarah in the form of the Deputy Leadership. Any further attempt to isolate her will drive another 20,000 from YP which is I suspect what many in The Many want.
The process of conducting this election was extremely suspect. karie Murphy should be told thank you and good bye. She was Corbyn’s Chief of Staff in the labour party and has learnt absolutely nothing.
I am suspecting that Corbyn’s faction doesn’t want any healing or reconciliation to take place.
See Jeremy Corbyn’s Arrogance & Disdain for Democracy Plus His Belief That He Alone Can Lead Your Party Is Destroying It – We Are Seeing a Repeat of Corbyn’s Disastrous Labour Leadership – He Has Learnt Nothing From His Expulsion of Anti-Zionists & Betrayal of Comrades
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2026/02/jeremy-corbyns-arrogance-disdain-for.html
“if Corbyn is made leader…”
Take it with a pinch of salt, Tony – this is the Canary playing the old divide and rule game.
My understanding is that the CEC is elected to stand instead of a single leader for an interim period. The Canary would like everybody to believe that its already rent by internal war – on the same day as the results were announced ! The author of the piece is speculating what they’d like to happen, they may be disaappointed.
When it does come to leadership elections, it will be noted that Corbyn will be pushing 80 by the time of the next general election – he may even be dead before then – but if he’s still going I would hope that he doesn’t stand.
There’d be little point in electing a leader with such a short shelf-life, if only for continuity reasons. I’m sure these points would be made when it comes to elections – although hopefully Corbyn will be wise enough not to stand anyway.
He will be the parliamentary leader. Zara herself said there will need to be one spokesperson for the party (its on her twitter account).
Some people choose not to be verified and not to vote that is their choice #democracy
This seems a very biased piece, blaming Corbyn for everything, over looking the problems caused by Sultanas early portal launch and anti Your Party comments to BBC. It predicts all manner of bad to expect from Corbyn, which may not happen at all. Sultana messaging centers on future internal battles. Ultimately Corbyn did receive almost double the vote share that Sultana did which shows wider support for his more pluralistic vision and taking the fight outside YP. Canary always seems to be pro Polanski and Sultana and anti Corbyn
This is not a news piece, it’s an opinion piece. Which is obviously fine but it would be named as such. It’s by someone who supports one of the factions. I remember when I used to trust the Canary. No more unfortunately. What a disappointment.
Yes Katie and quite insulting to members who voted for whom they thought would represent them best. Why do these supposed supporters of members having all the say not respect us when we have that say
Poor research Canary
The voters are generally more mature, which is why vastly more members voted for Corbyn than Sultana. Approximately Ssme number of ‘verified’ members at conference, and now, unless a new announcement is made.
If there is one thing I am sure abou, t its that its that its Zarah, the Grass roots left and their supporters, that will be carrying on with their maximum carnage project they’ve been at since Zarah joined. ,
Jeez this was bad reporting . Couldn’t read the rest.
Completely biased one sided account by people who are set on destroying Your Party before its even started.. One of them is sueing Corbyn for using the wrong type of STV. Even though its thought to be the most inclusive version of STV. Smacks of Reform sour grapes. Note that the people calling for maximum member democracy want to scrap OMOV and use Labour old and unfair delegate system, which gives the most well connected a say but noone else.. Thats not real member democracy.
Though I dont think she will get very far with the case as she has been harassing members of the sortition foundation.
Eagerly awaiting the follow up piece with all of the evidence to back up these claims.
On first vote preferences it was a resounding victory for Jeremy Corbyn and Zara got only 4000 votes. So it doesnt matter what type of STV was used.
On first vote preferences it was a resounding victory for Jeremy Corbyn and Zara got only 4000 votes. So it doesnt matter what type of STV was used.