Hi ruth, sorry you found the meeting so horrible. I attended this meeting, as a new labour member who signed up in part due to anger at the coup against labours democratically elected leader. It was my first meeting, and as a result I prefered to stay quiet and observe as a pose to acting as if I owned the place as some did. I found it less polarised than you describe: it is interesting to read the comments from people who also attended, which reflect the broad range of views and attitudes at the meeting. I can totally understand how it must have felt very unwelcoming for longer time labour members like you Ruth, and how hearing those who were rude, loud and angry would make you feel as if all the newcomers were like this. Personally i was annoyed with those who weren’t able to be civilised and who, whilst they have a right to be angry, shouldnt have expressed it in this way, and may have been bolstered by an arrogance of knowing that as corbyn supporters they were in a large majority. However as an observer new to this I was aware that it was a lot less polarised than this. As you said it is important to hear the quieter voices — of which there were many with a range of views. I don’t think its fair to lump everyone into a momentum/new members/ angry shouty people box — as you say we mustnt encourage a ‘binary dividing line’ in this debate. Whilst the majority in the room were pro-corbyn, many of these were being polite and reasoned, some were also Thangam supporters who felt conflicted. Some were more considerate of quieter voices, some less so. Those who stood for positions and were elected, momentum or otherwise certainly weren’t acting like bullies, and i hope they are going to be trying to unite rather than divide. I joined because i’m excited by the prospect of a more progressive, socialist and democratic labour party, but i want it to be one that listens, brings people with it and doesn’t divide and recriminate, and at the next meeting i’ll be more vocal about this (without shouting!)