Yes. Although the major problem with Lew's post is that it avoids that reality that the Labour Party ran its most data-driven campaign ever. Good - of course we should be doing that. But Lew is chastising the Labour Party into doing something it already is doing.
I believe we should have had the leadership election after a full review of what happened. But David actually didn't give us that choice. He bolted and forced the leadership race.
More data would be fantastic, but we got to work with what we got. I talked to 1000s of voters during this election. The mind-numbing consistency of the feedback I received from votes - that they didn't like Cunliffe - weighs heavily on my mind.
I think this is very well put. I had a similar experience during the campaign where we were campaigning relentlessly for the party vote. The worst experience was talking to a 70 year old lady who said she had voted Labour her entire life (that is a lot of elections and a lot of Labour Party leaders!) - but she wouldn't be doing it this time because she simply "couldn't stand" David Cunliffe. She had met Cunliffe personally at an event and couldn't bring herself to do it. He was just too smarmy and disingenuous for her. Easy to see how we go down to 24% when we lost those types of supporters.
I don't necessarily agree that Cunliffe should resign as an MP if he loses. Maybe he could stay. That should be up to him.