”John, we have Sunak, a fairly incompetent chancellor of a few weeks who looks young, slim, smart, thrusting, dynamic, businesslike and cheery, who speaks persuasively (though he's never persuaded me of very much) and who has undoubted charisma. And then we have Sir Keir, who looks stodgy and vacillating and who bends in the breeze. That's the next election sorted for you. So what's YOUR answer to that?

I completely agree with you about Sunak, Steve. And I don’t have an answer to your question, other than that I don’t believe Rebecca Long-Bailey would be able to deal with Sunak any more than Starmer.

I’m not arguing about who, of the leadership-election candidates, would have made the best leader - there’s nothing to argue about, the Party membership made its democratic choice and it was Starmer. End of.

What I’ve been trying to persuade you and Jim (who never listens to anything anyone says if it doesn’t align with his views) about is that the leader has been elected by a substantial majority in a democratic process. As someone above has pointed out, part of the reason for the Tories’ success in GEs is that, whatever their internal divisions, they present a United from as far as the voting public are concerned at election time. It’s incumbent on Labour voters in general, and Party members in particular, to show loyalty and support for the Party, and that means not undermining and backstabbing the democratically elected leader. It’s called Loyalty, and it counts for a great deal.

By the way, I'm staying in the party and, if I have to, I'll fight tooth and nail to get Starmer elected.

And so you should.