There is another factor which played a part in Rebecca Long-Bailey's downfall. Which I noted during the leadership campaign and hugely concerned me. It was certainly the number one reason I didn't want her as leader: however much the media's treatment of her was disgusting.

At the election, Labour was trounced. All sorts of people we needed to vote for us did not do so. If we don't reach out, hugely, we can't win.

But during the leadership campaign, what was horribly obvious was RLB's inability - even unwillingness - to reach out beyond her base.

It was apparent in so many of her answers at hustings. Everything was about pleasing the left of the party first.

As well as being bewildered by her performance at the Jewish Labour Movement hustings, I actually felt sorry for her. Because I felt she was trapped.

Trapped by her own positioning - but also because doing anything else would enrage her core support.

How do I know that? Last year, she went to meet with JLM. And acknowledged that Labour had lost the trust of British Jews. Cue an absolute torrent of fury on here towards her.

Exactly the same people for whom Corbyn meeting Hamas and Hizbollah was fine (which, by the way, it was) had an enormous problem with a Labour Shadow Cabinet minister meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement. Incredible, but true.

For those people, politics are quite absurdly tribal. 'Us' and 'them' all the damn time. Ultimately, it achieves nothing whatsoever.

So in the leadership contest, RLB knew she'd have no chance without 'us' - but couldn't reach out to 'them' (anyone else) at all.

This played itself out in recent weeks over the question of teachers' unions. Can't upset them - they're 'us', not 'them'!

The bigger picture - children going back to school is part of how the UK recovers - was subsumed beneath this. 'You're with us (the unions) or against us'.

In Uruguay, part of the reason the left lost power last year is because the teaching unions have been unbelievably intransigent on absolutely everything. 'No' to technological changes in teaching. 'No' to more modern curricula. 'No' to pay increases which don't bankrupt the state

'No' to student-centred, not teacher-centred approaches.

In consequence, educational results here have collapsed over the last few decades. The state education system used to be one of the pearls of Uruguayan society; it's a joke nowadays, rotten. And the public know it.

I say all that:

1. As a teacher myself

2. As someone who knows how hard teachers work and how expensive life is here

3. As someone whose inclination is generally to side with unions

4. As someone hugely concerned about a possible second wave and the dangers for teachers

But RLB's approach to politics - like the Uruguayan teachers' unions approach to politics - meant that she couldn't see the bigger picture. Which in these times of Coronavirus, certainly exists... and will become more and more apparent as the economic consequences bite horribly.

Some of the political figures I most admire historically are those who reached out so far, they destroyed themselves. Mikhail Gorbachev, Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, David Trimble or, in a different way, Lyndon Johnson (and I don't mean for Vietnam) are among them.

Sadat and Rabin's courage in seeking peace resulted in both being assassinated. Gorbachev was so successful (well beyond what he ever intended), his country ceased to exist. Trimble's name became dirt among many unionists. And Johnson?

When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he knew he was signing away the south for at least a generation. In fact, the consequences are still entirely with us now - and the genesis of the Republicans becoming a profoundly racist, hateful party are in that moment too.

Great politicians sometimes go way, way beyond their party's natural position or base because the bigger picture demands it. Every one of them were instantly denounced as 'sell-outs' or 'traitors'. Robert Peel even did it TWICE: Parliamentary reform and the Corn Laws.

And the subject of my abortive PhD, George Canning (the shortest-serving PM in British history) was so hated by his fellow Tories that when he became PM, most of them refused to work for him... so he formed a government with the Whigs (many of whom hated him too!) instead.

Canning's approach, foreign and domestic, was ahead of its time. He recognised independence of various South American countries: there's a street named after him in Montevideo. His liberal approach to the economy threatened Tory landowners, but made him popular with the people.

Ultimately, achieving something tangible - which lasts - in politics is very, very difficult. Very often, it's only done by those willing to accept unpopularity in their base in pursuit of something bigger.

Sometimes - as with Blair and Iraq - that approach is disastrously wrong

But at others, it's a sign of huge courage. RLB's approach to the leadership contest told me: she wasn't brave enough for a job as hellishly difficult as Leader of the Opposition. She wasn't willing to tell the hard truth about electoral reality; it's not how she does politics.

And - I suspect - being surrounded by people who tell her how wonderful she is but only if she agrees with them 100% on everything is probably why she didn't recognise why THAT tweet was offensive.

One other thing to finish. Maxine Peake said something else in her interview.

In fact, it was the headline itself: retweeted happily by Long-Bailey.

"People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned".

When seeking to govern - when seeking to persuade others - this is not a wise approach to take. To put it mildly

All of us on here fulminate at the Tories all the time. Plenty of us (including myself) have also fulminated at:

- Centrists

- Remainers

- The Lib Dems (I still do that even now)

- The Labour right

Criticising other parties in the strongest terms is entirely fair game. Attacking those who voted for them because they didn't trust us is not. It's incredibly stupid. What can it possibly achieve other than further alienating them: making a Labour government LESS likely?

Quite likely, Starmer will have done his nut at seeing a member of his Shadow Cabinet retweeting an article with such a headline, and praising the person who said it too.

Why? Because it's tribal. "Us good you bad". But 'us' isn't big enough. 'Us' need plenty of 'them' to win.

And when 'them' includes most British Jews - who were terrified of us - attacking them for it is... well, not a strategy.

I've mentioned this many times before, and will conclude with it now. Ever wondered why Tories never say "OH SOD OFF AND JOIN THE LABOUR PARTY?"

It's a cliche I know; but on social media, it very much applies. The right looks for converts, the left looks for traitors.

And that's a very significant part of why the right keeps winning: to everyone's detriment.

PS. One important error in the thread above. Peel always opposed Parliamentary reform. His two great acts of courage - infuriating his Tory colleagues to a point of apoplexy - were on the Corn Laws... and Catholic emancipation.