Please no comparisons to George Lansbury. He was a pacifist but a firm patriot and such naïveté feels more justified in the interwar period. Even then, when he saw he was failing to lead he stepped down.

Everyone’s anti-disarmament *after* the War but remembering people don’t live history with foresight and the horrors of WWI still fresh in minds, I completely get why there were pacifists in the 30s.

And no comparisons to the intellectually hefty Michael Foot who failed badly but stuck by his country when the Falklands were invaded and, agree or not, honest and straight talking, stuck to his principles on Europe rather than creating confusion.

Maybe the nearest comparison is Miliband in terms of a tenure unduly focused on internal party issues and reorganisation with some bold ideas that didn’t hang together enough, losing swathes of traditional Labour voters.