David Cameron may have been forced to resign in light of Britain’s vote to leave the EU, but, as ever, division in the Labour Party is competing with governmental  troubles for media coverage.

The rolling news is focusing on the potential threat to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership – if the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) passes a vote of no confidence in him, Labour will face a fresh round of internal elections. The National Executive Committee (NEC) will vote on whether or not Corbyn should be placed on the ballot automatically, meaning that he would not need to secure the PLP nominations he almost certainly wouldn’t get this time around. He has already confirmed that he has no intention of stepping aside.

As has been reported, the instigators of the coup against Corbyn are linking it to his perceived inaction in campaigning to remain in the EU. Many traditional Labour strongholds comprehensively rejected EU membership, and some PLP members – only ten of whom campaigned to leave the EU – believe that Corbyn did not do enough to convince voters in these areas of the benefits of remaining, or effectively combat misinformation propagated by the right-wing press and certain corners of the Leave campaign.

However, I’m not sure that anything he could have done would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the referendum. If we’re apportioning blame for our impending Brexit, then Corbyn ought to be relatively low down on the list of ‘culprits’. That said, it doesn’t mean I don’t think Labour could perform better under a different leader, or that we shouldn’t test this if the no confidence motion passes.

Why do I think a more fervent Remain effort from Corbyn would have made little difference? Because some voted Leave out of a belief that it is, effectively, only the middle classes who stand to gain from globalisation. Because some voted Leave as they think the EU is undemocratic, distant, pro-austerity – or a combination of all of these things. Because many people continually feel ignored, alienated and lied to by politicians, and therefore regard statistics which come out of Westminster with skepticism. I voted to remain in the EU, but I can understand these concerns, and it is clear that no party has done enough to address them. No party has even been able to set out a coherent strategy as to how they could address them.

As an interjection, some on the left have an entirely unacceptable attitude towards those who voted to leave for these reasons. Disappointment over the result is no excuse for overtly classist mockery of those opposed to the EU. However, a desire to avoid demonising and stereotyping Leave voters is no excuse for silencing those who point out that a structurally racist society, and bigoted media scaremongering about immigrants, were inarguably factors in the referendum result. For too long, too many politicians have had entirely the wrong responses to challenges from the far right; pandering to them has only served to give their views the appearance of legitimacy. Corbyn has been the leader of the opposition for less than a year, and these issues far predate his rise to political prominence. He can hardly be considered a major factor in the victory of the Leave campaign.

Why, then, do I not object to the idea of a leadership contest? Primarily because I think Labour is historically bad at replacing leaders who do not perform well in the media, and whose communication strategies do not work well enough. I believe that the party should, as a general rule, be more prepared to subject its leaders to the scrutiny of the membership even after their initial election. I feel this way, quite simply, because I want Labour to win elections so we can put our policies and values into practice. The Tories are far more willing to challenge leaders whose unpopularity with the media or the general public is a cause for concern, and it has largely served them well electorally.

The leadership election that resulted in Corbyn’s victory was supposed to embody ideological renewal in the Labour Party. Perhaps this did happen, and it has just failed to provide any answers to the problems Labour had with expressing its vision for the country under Miliband. Miliband couldn’t even be clear as to whether or not he thought Labour overspent while in government, and it’s because of this that we’re still plagued by accusations that Labour caused the recession.

It may surprise, given my views on his leadership, that I supported Ed Miliband when he ran for Labour leader. I am still saddened that he did not become Prime Minister in 2015. I was continually outraged by his treatment in the media. I made a conscious effort not to criticise elements of the Labour campaign publicly, even though the voice of a 20 year old English student wasn’t exactly going to impact upon the General Election result. And then Miliband’s Labour lost. Just as it was always going to lose, with a leader who was disliked by the press and not an effective communicator.

I couldn’t see it at the time, but Miliband should have stepped down or been challenged a couple of years into his tenure as leader. The PLP has the ability to instigate a vote of no confidence for a reason – whatever a leader’s mandate, there needs to be a mechanism for party members to confirm that they still think the leader is doing a good job, and it has been to our disadvantage that we haven’t made enough use of it.

In the aftermath of a referendum that, more than anything else in our recent electoral history, has exposed great rifts in our society, it is more important than ever before that our major left party is united, competent, and effective. That will mean different things depending on the events of the next few days.

If there is a leadership challenge, let’s make it an opportunity for us to re-consider how best we can represent our policies and values to the public – and not another pointless verbal mud-slinging match. Let’s not allow factionalism to intensify depending on who does or does not vote for Corbyn. If Corbyn were to win – which, if he is on the ballot, he probably will – then it’s better for the country and party that we unite behind him; but hopefully the contest serves as a significant push to re-think some of our strategies, and appoint better media managers and communications professionals. If he loses, it’s better that we unite behind the victor, and hold them to the same high standard of competence which a number of us feel our recent leaders have lacked.

At a time when our country is so divided, the Labour Party cannot afford to be. That doesn’t mean we can afford to be quiet, ignore our concerns, and passively repeat the same mistakes for another five, ten, fifteen years of Tory rule.