THE Argus recently published a letter from me (Labour is facing “biggest crisis in its entire history”) wherein I mentioned the virtues of Clement Attlee, a true patriot and man of the people, and expressed concerns in relation to the future of today’s Labour Party.

I also referred to the dangers associated with the undemocratic activities of Momentum and its dubious ambitions.

Against this background, I was concerned to read an article in The Mirror, which seemed to confirm my fears, indicating that Jon Lansman had warned activists of the need to shake up rules so a hard-left candidate can seek the Labour leadership “if any tragedy was to befall Jeremy”.

Apparently Lansman’s idea of democracy involves “future proofing”

party rules and further cutting the threshold for the appointment of candidates to five per cent, a move previously dubbed the “McDonnell Amendment”, making it more likely for a leftwinger to gain sufficient support to enter the race for leadership.

Little imagination is needed to realise how moderate candidates would fare in such a scenario.

But what particularly interested me was Lansman’s bizarre remark about Jeremy Corbyn. In his place I would feel worried – indeed I would watch my back. It’s all very well referring to a bond created by a long relationship but what if Corbyn falls foul of the Momentum project or recognises the flaw in Lansman’s view of democracy?

Or could it simply be that Corbyn was dragged out of obscurity, to be cynically manipulated to promote propaganda? Communists describe such people as “useful idiots”.

Is it possible that Lansman, who is thought to have come under pressure from Corbyn to drop a general secretary bid, has aspirations?

Whatever the position, I am of the view that the vast majority of Labour supporters are honest citizens who cherish their right to freedom of speech and do not like being manipulated.

I believe they are fed up with the activities of despotic individuals, such as as Blair and Lansman.

They would like a leader, such as Atlee, who would allow them to stand on their own feet and state their case without fear of retribution – not individuals whose sole interest is advancing their own interests.