When Jeremy Corbyn was the leader, a large number of senior Labour people on the right of the party refused to work with him in the shadow cabinet. One of that lot, Tom Watson, served as deputy leader. Both he and many of those others never missed an opportunity to brief against Corbyn, and Jeremy endured trumped-up accusations of antisemitism that none of them ever tried to refute in his defence. Indeed, several senior Labour figures attacked him on it constantly and dishonestly. Corbyn tried to be inclusive in selecting a team from all wings of the party. But there was never any bleating about "unity" or "compromise" then from those refuseniks who are bleating about it now. On the contrary, the sole aim was to get the properly-elected leader, Corbyn, out. Those people gave the right-wing media open season on Corbyn and they did it deliberately. Didn't exactly help in 2019, did it?

As for compromise, etc., I invite you to reread the anodyne comments made by Becky Long-Bailey and Jeremy Corbyn that got them the boot. Completely laughable. Starmer couldn't wait to pounce on the left at the very slightest opportunity. And now he tries to change the party rules in order to sideline them further. What price "compromise"?

As for pragmatism, it's not pragmatic to keep propping up a leader who can never win an election. In 2010 the country gave Labour a kicking once it saw what Blairism had done to us. Well this guy is just a tired old Blairite who fatally, hasn't got even a trace of Blair's charisma.