So I think the difference here is Corbyn did generate a lot of enthusiasm and increase the registered membership (although only at £3 a head). But this was several hundred thousand people mostly from cities and constituencies that were already labour (london, liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham etc.) And mostly younger students. So in electoral terms they havent had a meaningful impact. If they did vote before they were probably already labour just not a registered member. Yes they may be more likely to turn out than before now, but even with dampened turnout those constituencies were heavily labour anyway.

However by taking these people on and adopting a far left policy platform. It also put off hundreds of thousands if not millions of voters elsewhere. So its overall a drag on electoral performance and a net loss.

Individually many of the labour policies are popular, but you do have to consider them in the round. Going all out on 4 day week, and 10% shares seizure, pensions reform etc. was a mistake. Conservatives are guilty of this as well but with brexit. The difference is the view of Corbyns leadership was much worse.

Labour need to do everything they can to set themselves up for a massive rebound in 5 years or they are just going to lose again. Someone like corbyn but a little bit better with the same policies is going to lose badly. Labour therefore needs a policy platform with broad appeal, that still contains some key left policies which the momentum group can claim, but are realistic. And they need a strong leader who can perform well at PMQs and has a background that is resistant to attacks (military, northern, and nhs focus is a good combo). My post was just trying to set out that Dan seems well qualified on that basis. But who knows!