You are missing the point. It's worth commenting on *now*, because it's been leaked to gauge reaction. Don't react, and they think we're happy with it.

Governments have been doing this since at least the Gladstone-Daily Telegraph hook-up.

I don't object to you supporting trans-inclusive Labour candidates. But you are right, I do object to you campaigning for a transphobe to be FM or PM. I would feel the same about you campaigning for a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist to be FM or PM, tbf.

It's also worth noting that it has suddenly become significant at a point at which the governing party are pushing the most racist set of policy proposals in decades. Starmer has suddently decided to point fingers. "Look over there at the bad racist. Don't look at us. No, no, no. Not at us."

Aye, OK. How do you think they obtained it?

It's called "flying a kite". Refusing to respond to it means supporting it, practically.

So if Anas Sarwar is still leader next year, you won't campaign for Labour in the Holyrood election? To do so would be to campaign for a transphobe to be FM. If Streeting becomes UK leader, you won't campaign for Labour at the next UKGE? To do so would be to campaign for Streeting to be PM.

You will not campaign for Sarwar to become First Minister?

You haven't adequately criticised them, and you certainly haven't assured me that you wouldn't vote for, or even campaign for, a transphobic bigot who is a candidate for your party, but I suppose I can't expect that. The bullheadedness of party loyalty always stands in the way of principled stances.

Took a while to get that out of you, but at least you've been forced to focus on the problem, rather than, as you started out doing, only flippantly insisting that your bigoted mates aren't "horrid". You criticised me; I've forced you to criticise them.

Good.