The problem here is that neither Jeremy nor George are suitable leadership material for a new left wing party. Jeremy provided some hope as a leader because he is a moral man with a good moral record, and traditional left wing policies that are actually popular with much of the public. But he failed the leadership test, and why would we be surprised or disappointed with this, or slag him off as so many contributing here do? He wasn't a backbencher for all his many years in Parliament for no reason, and his elevation to leadership was pure serendipity. He just doesn't have the political nous to be a leader, the needed degree of controlled nastiness and manipulativeness, and sadly it seems, a sturdy defence of his allies when needed, for self-preservation against your enemies without, and your enemies within.

George, whatever moral qualities he does possess and political fighting spirit, on the other hand is a blow-hard, and possesses all the qualities that Jeremy lacks to total excess. He's probably impossible to work with - there are likely not enough knives in the kitchen for the his future frustrated political colleagues to backstab him. He's never been able to construct any lasting team around him despite his many appearances in Parliament under different political banners. His political belligerence is both his usefulness and his achilles heel.

Nor is Craig leadership material. He does seem to have good qualities in his political resumé but he's not actually physically that robust, suffers high levels of stress - and wouldn't want the job anyway.

What we seem to be seeing a diverse and well-meaning collection of basically good radical people rightly frustrated with the absence of effective left wind politics in the UK. But from that it seems unlikely to me any effective political party or opposition to the status quo will emerge.

In regard to "soft Zionists", I am not sure what Craig means. He says they are politicians who "support the continued existence of the terrorist entity in the Middle East". So does that mean they support the continued existence of Israel or not - as it is now or as a more conciliatory country within the confines of its internationally recognised legal borders and behaving within the confines of international norms and laws? Craig doesn't define this and I think he should.

In regard to independence for Scotland - that of course is almost Craigs raison d'être, and I'm unsure in what way a new left wing party would "leave Scotland alone".