Surely there is something to be said for principles?

Much is being written and said about Labour's need for unity. What is not to like? But was the party that lost the election noticeably divided? Surely not. Ed MILIBAND had led for 5 years, gathering plaudits for leading a united party, even despite doubts about his apparent leadership qualities stressed by commentators. Was there too much focus on control of the message, to retain that semblance of unity? Probably. Did the Tories, a party notoriously divided over Europe and more, lose? No.

So now, despite this background, we members are urged to unite behind one of a number of would-be leaders, most of whom are saying they were not in favour of aspects of recent policy to which they agreed until May 8th. Such is unity. Is unity then our duty or responsibility? Surely not. It is surely up to potential leaders to unite us. This is what leadership means. The Labour Party is a broad church, like the Conservatives and LibDems. This means that is is home to those of the far Left and far Right of Labour politics. We should not be asked to give up sincerely held beliefs and principles in the cause of making someone of whom the media disapproves least look like a unifier. It is for a true leader to accommodate the diversity of the people and inspire them to unite under Labour values, a vision for the country's future and active opposition to the government. John Smith was widely reported to be one such.

For now, I shall promote as leader the candidate whose version of Labour most closely tallies with my own: @JeremyCorbyn4Leader He has little chance of getting into the race, let alone being elected but only he appears to be standing on a clear, socialist platform, to which he has been consistent for decades. Could he unify Labour? There is only one way to find out....
Tom Serpell