(Yes, I know there is a Corbyn thread, but the anti-Corbynites have refused, over and over to respond there)
1) If continuing to try to press Corbyn to resign and let the right wing of the party reassert total, market-Stalinist control of the Labour Party was really such an obviously necessary thing, as you believe it to be, how do you explain the fact that there not been one poll, since Corbyn took over, that shows that the party would do significantly better against the Tories if a Blairite restoration(which is the only thing the PLP will accept) were imposed?
2) Corbyn was just re-elected leader by an increased margin. Given that, aren't you being completely anti-democratic to STILL be calling for his removal?
3) If Corbyn were somehow forced out by PLP pressure, after just having been re-elected leader in a landslide, what right would anyone who replaced him in the job possibly have to even ask Corbyn's supporters(who are the overwhelming majority of the party now) for their support and votes at the next general election, given that the PLP won't accept anyone as leader who isn't a pro-austerity, pro-war, anti-union and anti-immigrant reactionary?
4) Why are you still relentlessly attacking Corbyn and his supporters rather than listening to them and actually trying to make some sort of common cause with them? You do realize that Labour can't win if those people are expelled from the party or only allowed to stay in a position of helpless powerlessness, don't you? Why not embrace the idea that Corbyn's supporters are a good group of people and could bring positive things to the party if allowed to remain and have a say? Why, instead, treat them as nothing but a nuisance and the principles they fight for as foolishness to be got over?
5) Why don't you support at least agreeing to carry on Corbyn's program of restoring internal party democracy? a contract to do that and an agreement not to try and drive Corbyn's supporters out of the party might actually have persuaded the guy to stand down(he's probably the most egoless figure in modern British politics). Why, instead, was he offered no agreement to accept his supporters' continued presence in the party and nothing at all but a meaningless, irrelevant and humiliating position as "party president"-a job in which he would have been allowed no say in policy and would have been forced to publicly endorse every right-wing policy his successor as leader would have imposed from above?
6)Do you want the Labour Party to be significantly different from the Tories, or to reduce itself to what David Miliband wanted-i.e., "it's enough that it's US doing the cuts, and it's ok when its US doing the bombing"?