Many in the media predicted a dull Labour leadership contest, how wrong those people were. In the excitement of the past few weeks it has been hard for anyone not to adopt a stance on this subject.
Every Labour Party member is currently drowning in a sea of paper. Some have suffered only minor paper cuts; others haven't been so lucky. I have received roughly 23 letters since I wrote the previous sentence. My postman has suffered a nervous breakdown. Enough is enough.
This is a vision worth striving for, matched with policies designed to deliver it. Who would Aneurin Bevan have supported as Leader of today's Labour Party? Answer: Jeremy Corbyn, no doubt.
It was helpful of Jeremy Corbyn to publish an eight-page economic manifesto last month. We can now be 100% sure that his policies would scare every major company away from the UK for good.
Like it or not, political parties are brands - just try Googling 'political parties as brands' to see how many people have 'proved' this. Politicians have to stand out in a crowded and noisy marketplace, just like other brands. So why does the undifferentiated - or, to be fair, the less differentiated - middle work for them in a way that doesn't apply to consumer goods? What sets politics apart?
Election campaigns do invigorate and clarify, but in recent weeks we have at times given the impression that we are arguing with each other rather than taking the Tories to task or debating what Labour needs to do to hold true to its values and win. It's about giving leadership and I believe the best candidate to do that and to bring us together as a stronger Labour Party at the next General Election is Andy Burnham.
There is more than a whiff of irony surrounding claims that Corbyn and his ilk are stuck in the past because a left-wing manifesto failed in 1983, an irony that quickly graduates to outright hypocrisy when Blairism is then quickly suggested as the formula to emulate.
I hope I'm wrong but Ed Miliband's restructuring of the voting system means that Corbyn will win and probably by a long margin. So come the 12th September, we'll have one man to thank for the death of the Labour Party: Ed Miliband.
Cooper's own vision of reforming capitalism into a social-democratic alternative based on Labour's founding principles of social justice seemed just as radical as Corbyn's vision to me - if not more so, as it looks to harness the future rather than the past.
Jeremy Corbyn appeals to Labour members who want a party of protest, rather than one that can get power. This is about ideologically beating the rest of the left, not winning over the electorate.
Corbyn would lead real attempts to defeat government policies in Parliament. While Cooper, Burnham or even Kendall might do so occasionally, their abstentions in the recent welfare vote reveal their general caution. How much opposition would they really be leading?
It may well make the left feel good to return to bleating on about nationalisation and raising taxes and spending like a sailor on shore leave but the world and Britain in particular has moved on from those days. The Labour Party can, if they want, return to the politics of the 1970s, but Britain will not be joining them
What makes me nervous is the way Corbyn and his allies are flourishing QE as though it solves all economic problems at a stroke. Using the power of money creation is not something that can be done irresponsibly; it must be subject to two important constraints.
Nationalisation is possible and will not bankrupt the country. The railways require patience. The energy industry requires competition. The route to ensuring small-scale nationalisation is not to rely on the traditional method of wholesale purchase at market price.
This endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn is, admittedly, in part to do with the man's record; as one of Parliament's lowest expenses claimants; as the Labour MP to vote against the party whip more than any other; as someone who protested apartheid, opposed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supported LGBT rights when such views were unpopular; as the only Labour leadership hopeful to oppose Trident and austerity.
Some are now seemingly making the mistake of thinking that Corbyn would not only be a leader who would be preferable to his rivals and predecessors, but would also be good enough to deliver what the world needs. Let me briefly lay out three key reasons why the latter isn't so.