Reply to thread

It's pretty obvious that Burnham is saying Corbyn would split the party if he (Corbyn) were leader, whereas if I (Burnham) were leader he wouldn't, precisely because its a completely different scenario. He is of course also suggesting at the same time that only he can therefore bring the factions together etc because Corbyn would split it, and because the Cooper/ Kendall option would refuse to work with the Corbyn faction, so vote for me (Burnham)

The idea of bringing opposing factions with whom you don't agree into a government is nothing new. Lyndon Baines Johnson talked about having people inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside pissing in, and the Tsarina of Finchley herself appointed 4 or 5 "wets" in her first cabinet even though she disagreed with them but realised she needed to build a semblance of unity before she could go mad. John Major appointed 3 "bastards" in order to appease a faction too, even though he would happliy they not have been there, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that David Cameron really wanted the Liberals as partners of choice in a coalition (even if you might be able to argue he'd prefer to deal with Nick Clegg than his own UKIP tendancy). What might interesting there of course is how Corbyn would steer Labour party policy on Europe (that could be hysterical)

The question should be (and no one has really sought to ask it in any depth) is would Corbyn serve under a leadership where he'll be out voted at Cabinet? I wouldn't assume he would