The question of how different elements of the Labour party continue to work with each other is an important one. It would be a clear abdication of responsibility for anyone in the party not to commit completely to campaigning for it — I think most people would agree with that. However, within that idea we have the fact that elections are fought in very different ways across constituencies depending on their political make up, so there is room for different elements of the party to express themselves in different ways. I don’t think it’s fair to expect people to serve on the front bench if they have reservations about the direction of the party, as long as they can explain those reservations clearly. The important thing is that everyone contributes in some way. A good example would be Yvette Cooper, who never took a place in Shadow Cabinet but who set up Labour’s refugee taskforce.

The only other thing I’d say in response to you post is that succession planning is very important, and something that has been significantly neglected by the Labour party, especially by New Labour. It is important that after a significant loss there be enough ability and leadership at all levels of the party that there is space for change and growth without there being a power vaccuum. Regardless of your thoughts on Corbyn I think it’s fair to say that none of the other Leadership candidates were in a position to set out a compelling case for why they should be leader, and that’s given the impression that there’s no alternative candidate for the more left-wing elements of the party and so they stick with Corbyn despite his flaws.

For my own part, and it hurts me to say this because I respect the man and support 99% of his policies, I absolutely think he should bank his capital and stand aside as leader. It is not the role he is best suited too and whilst he remains as the figurehead of the party he fuels the civil war. He has so much support in with the Membership he could define party policy for a decade, instigate democratic reforms, and make the PLP to account for every position it takes. That would be a far more productive and helpful goal than being involved in the necessary compromise of leadership and media spotlight that comes with the position.

I think Labour should outline a direction of travel — one that encompasses pragmatic short term policies but also highlights the long term goals of the party if it were in government. At the moment the passionate left (I’m trying to find something better than ‘hard left’) of the party accuses the centre left of playing lip service to the goals of redistribution and equality that the party stands for, whilst the soft left and the centrists accuse the passionate left of not understanding the need to compromise and the massively difficult of winning in marginal seats with voters outside the party base. I hope we can get to somewhere like that without the party splitting.