Some interesting commentary from the @novaramedia folks here. @mattzarb clear about a need to reach out to the soft left going forward, which is good. But...

I think there are some flaws in their insights. Firstly they feel that there is a Corbynism / soft left gap that seperates socialists and social democrats. I don't think that's true really. Most on the soft left are fairly happy with both labels and see these as complementary.

The soft left also isn't scared of radical, transformative or indeed 'green politics' policies (as suggested by @AaronBastani).

It wants to them to have electoral context, deep substance and strategic rigour.

Why choose whichever policy? To what end? How to make that work?

The SL has a far bigger beef with the way people (both left and right) have spent the Corbyn years behaving. What was it about the context that made this happen? Was this not more avoidable?

Our issue is with the highly sectarian and bitter culture & structure that emerged.

We also take issue with the idea that we don't exist, or are mushy, or backstabbers or whatever. Yes, lots of unorganised members are de facto 'soft left'. We represent a socialist bloc in a capitalist world, and are honest that this isn't simple or easy.

We also lack anything like the money or even more importantly the data that both the 'wings' of the party can access, due to funding from well off people on one side, and the 2015 campaign xls file on the other.

This does not make us not worthy of your consideration or time.

Anyway, invite some of us on for a chat @michaeljswalker @mattzarb @AaronBastani. We're alright you know, and there's plenty to debate going forward. Might even not be boring, who knows?