I pretty hugely disagree that it's someone without an understanding of labour. I fully agree however that he's making a heavy point by omission of some of its members (or rather a whole branch of) and being pretty selective about how he angles it.
But the huge number of words he's used to do so is largely... the actual history of the Labour Party. Are any of his notes on the various leanings innacurate? Which?
And at its core, while both marckee and Colin have made good points that bear inserting into that articles narrative to make it more accurate, the point stands: the new wave of labour signups - not those returning - are throwing everything
Maybe for the better, sure. But certainly at full odds with what came before and therefore fracturing the party to the nth degree. The broad church as it's been called a couple of times now is no longer hosting a congregation willing to get over their differences. Labour is being destroyed. Hopefully something huge comes out of the ashes, but I wonder if the old hardcore in the unions will have any benefit from what that is, and where they'll go instead.