Paul Mason has once again offered a solution to the conflict within the Labour Party which is worthy of serious consideration by anybody who wants to see the party successfully develop in a left wing direction, although some will baulk at its conclusions.

Essentially Mason believes that on the assumption of a Corbyn win a further coup will be instituted from September 5th onwards, when Parliament reassembles, and that its success will be dependent on the ‘soft left’ led by Owen Smith continuing in their role as dupes of the Labour right, although the latter are determined to split anyway, preferably as the Labour Party, but if not as a centre party, with or without Labour’s ‘soft left’.

He says that the ‘soft left’ can save Labour as a viable left led party, but that will involve two things: one, suggested previously, to reserve shadow cabinet places for ‘Smithites’ on the basis of the votes he gets, and for the ‘soft left’ to declare that they will not split from the party. He says this must happen now if the coup is to be prevented.

As in previous articles Mason is rightly taking a strategic approach, based on the view that it will be difficult for a Corbyn-led party to survive if opposed by both the soft/centre-left and the Blairite-right in parliament, but that if a deal could be struck between the Corbyn and the soft/centre left this would weaken the anti-Corbyn forces, lead to the welcome departure of the Blairite right from the party and institute a new era of co-operation at parliamentary level.

He paints a telling picture of Smith, driven by ambition but light on conviction, and with too much dodgy baggage, and it is not surprising that the ‘Smithites’ are all similarly characterised, although there are many with sounder convictions and background.

There are a number of problems with Mason’s predictions and conclusions, and one glaring omission, namely the views of the membership on what he proposes.

My assessment is that a majority of Corbyn supporters would strongly oppose the sort of compromise Mason is proposing. This is so not only for the minority of ultra-lefts who always opposed any compromise and who see the no confidence vote as confirming their views, but for the greater numbers, mainly newer members, who cannot forgive the majority of MPs for what they did. Many of these, in my observation, are driven by a deeply moral outrage at the nature of our society, rather than by any particular practical goals, and see in Corbyn the personification of the forces that will change society for the better. They are therefore likely to be opposed to any compromise with those they see as having tried to destroy their hero, but if such a compromise were initiated or endorsed by Corbyn he would immediately lose his saintly veneer and become just another politician. Many would leave, which could mean that he lost majority support which is the whole basis of his and the left’s position in the party. Mason does not appear to have considered this at all, but it is vital to do so. There is no point in having a viable PLP if support for a left leadership collapses as a result.

I also doubt Mason’s split scenario. If another coup captures the party for the Blairites there is no need for a split, indeed it would be the left that might then split with perhaps a new left party being formed, although I would oppose that. But if Corbyn wins I cannot see that any amount of legal shenanigans can hijack the party. Where then will the Blairites go? There isn’t the support among anti-Corbynites for a new party, and because of this they would probably not carry a majority of the PLP with them. If they did form a new party it could have a catastrophic electoral effect on both old and new parties, but it would only make sense for that minority whose sole concern was to destroy a Corbyn led party. And there is nowhere else to go. There is no potential SDP/Liberal ‘Alliance’ out there, and what is left of the Lib-Dems would regard them as far too right wing anyway. Some might join the Conservatives, after Teresa May’s touching declaration of her concern for the poor, but most will continue to sit around sulking in the Labour Party, plotting and scheming for the next leadership challenge.

The best way of ensuring that that is not successful, or doesn’t occur at all, is for Corbyn, following the result, to issue an appeal for unity within the PLP and the wider party, to invite Smith and others to rejoin the Shadow Cabinet, to repeat his opposition to widespread deselection, to commit to a more collegiate and collective approach and to actively pursue the development of policy including that proposed by Smith in the leadership debates.

For reasons given above there can be no overt deal with the ‘Smithites’, and neither are they likely to offer anything, but it is reasonable to assume that there will be some positive response from the anti Corbyn soft/centre left, and that this will grow as support grows within the party and the country.

The shape of politics in the near future is uncertain, but the May honeymoon is unlikely to last long. A united and confident Labour Party with clear and coherent policies must be our aim and is the only route to success.