This is The Guardian.

Today, we're in Liverpool to see if your party can get it together.

Now is the moment you've all been waiting for. It's taken five months, countless regional assemblies and a lot of bickering.

But finally, this weekend, in a conference hall in Liverpool, it came down to a vote.

We have principles, and above all, we have a name.

17,000 people have spoken and the permanent name for the party temporarily known as your party is...

Your party is the name of your party.

The next big question was, who should lead it?

Jeremy Corbyn, Tsar al-o Sultanah, both of them at once.

You voted for a collective leadership.

Ultimately, members decided they wouldn't have a single leader at all.

The party will be led by committee.

But will it end the chaos?

Guardian Repres. party will be led by committee. But will it end the chaos? Guardian reporter Geraldine McKelvie was in Liverpool on the weekend for your party's conference,

and you found members disappointed but determined to make your party work.

So what do you think about the fact that your party has had a fairly chaotic start to life? I mean, I think the organisers have made a right mess of it. I do think a lot of the organisational mistakes have been very regrettable, and I don't want to see the same people in charge of the party. So one of my friends, she describes the process of creating a new party, a bit like giving birth to a child. Like the process is very difficult and by the end of it you've got something that you sort of love

and nurture all the rest of it.

I think it's a moment. You know, I think this is a really historic moment.

But can a party so mired in disagreement really unite the left, especially with Zach Polanski and the Greens on the up?

And when its inaugural conference began with one of its founders boycotting proceedings?

From The Guardian, I'm Helen Pitt. Today in Focus.

Can a leaderless party really hope for electoral success?

...