You:
I said this would be the result of a NO vote
The point is that there were broadly two camps within Labour on the question:
1) "Tribalists" - people who take Herbert Morrison's attitude, "socialism is what a Labour goverment does".
2) "Pluralists" - people who think, from whatever political perspective (right or left), that as the political system/party structure is *presently constituted* it is necessary to be involved in Labour. But they want to see some kind of realignment or restructuring of party politics. (Progress want no doubt a giant US style Democrat left to swallow up the LDs, Compass some soft left love in between social liberals, Labour and Greens, and I'm not alone in hoping that there could be an independent left worth leaving Labour for!!)
Politics throws up some funny alliances - in this instance Stephen Twigg was on the same side as John McDonnell, I was working with people from Progress etc... - against the GMB.
Now broadly I agree with the GMB about Progress. But that doesn't mean I share the limited political ambitions of the GMB leadership.
And being in Labour now does not imply I want to be Labour forever, unless the character of the Labour party changes very fundamentally.
The contradiction isn't in my thought. It's in reality! Dialectics, comrade.