An open letter to Owen Smith: you are going to lose, but don’t miss this chance to build Labour’s post-Corbyn foundations

Dear Owen

Re: ABC

It’s not working, is it?

I’m still not sure whether you expected it to work, or whether you knew all along that your challenge to Jeremy Corbyn was doomed. Don’t get me wrong, I approve of the challenge. I think it’s the last best way of demonstrating that there remains a functioning parliamentary socialist party somewhere in the Labour Party, and that even if it remains deeply buried for the moment, all is not lost.

In all honesty, I cannot say that I think you were the best person to have carried this torch at this particular time. Your record suggests you are slightly less soft than ‘soft left’ Angela Eagle, and therefore perhaps better placed to scoop up a few disillusioned Corbynistas on the grounds of competence. However, while I am certainly not squeamish about the Machiavellian side of politics, I think you exaggerated the distinction between Angela and yourself in this regard, to an extent that I find slightly unpalatable.

There’s also the problem of your background in lobbying. Like many people that have worked in a London-based think-tank, I’ve benefited from Pfizer money too (albeit far more indirectly than you). So I know that they aren’t really all that bad. And the high-value and life-saving manufacturing activity at the core of their business is mostly rather good (within a very flawed market structure). But come on Owen, you know this is a problem. You knew this was a problem when you challenged Angela.

Admittedly, Angela had the Iraq problem. But this challenge to Corbyn was always going to be about character rather than policy. Whether fair or not, your very recent background in lobbying for a global pharmaceuticals giant is arguably as damaging to you as Iraq is to Angela.

It also worries me how quickly the parliamentary party were to dismiss Angela, given what it would have signified for Labour to have a working-class woman as leader at this particular moment in history. Even if she had lost, just as badly as you are likely to, then at least her candidacy (noting also the significance of Angela’s sexual orientation in this regard) would have symbolised the Labour Party’s profound commitment to inclusion and equality.

I’m not against ‘normal’, middle-class men leading the Labour Party per se (bring back Ed, I say). But there probably had to be something pretty special about the guy who was going to win me over at this stage. Or at least someone with a genuine chance of victory.

You deserved to be given the benefit of the doubt. But for many who might have been inspired to rally to your cause, the doubt has evolved into indifference.

I still want you to win — very, very much. I think you’re a good guy, and that’s the most important thing. The difference in the strength of my respective feelings towards you and Angela are microscopic compared to the difference between my feelings for Corbyn and Anyone But Corbyn.

So I have two main suggestions.

Re: Alignment

Firstly, come out strongly for a realignment of the British left, exemplified by a parliamentary alliance between Labour (that is, the PLP), the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party.

This move could both alter the dynamics of the leadership election, and ensure that Labour has a future as a governing party. So, start negotiations now. To achieve the necessary short term impact, you must be in a position to be holding a press conference alongside the Westminster leaders of each of these parties before the ballots go out.

Such an alliance is the only plausible way back into government for Labour in the short term. It is also the only route to the creation of a meaningful social movement. It is for this reason that even some of those close to Corbyn are now openly advocating a ‘progressive alliance’. I think it is naïve to think that Corbyn might ever have any interest in such an arrangement, yet he has successfully nurtured the myth that only through Corbynism can the labour movement appeal to other parts of the left.

Crucially, a new relationship between Labour and other parties may be decisive in avoiding a split within the Labour Party. An agreement between Labour and its parliamentary allies will provide the perfect rationale for the selection of an alternative parliamentary leader, while Corbyn retains the Labour leadership. This may of course precipitate a constitutional dilemma — even if Corbyn acquiesces to the plan — but it would be a creative form of destruction.

Moreover, if Corbyn opposes the plan, it would provide grounds for the 172+ Labour MPs opposed to his leadership to signal their independence from his leadership without leaving Labour. They would simply be required to tweak their party affiliation — as any MP is entitled to do — to reflect the alliance, in much the same way that many Labour MPs are also ‘Labour and Co-operative’ MPs. My understanding is that the Speaker would then have to recognise the new grouping as the official opposition, if he is asked to do so.

Let Corbyn be the one who stands in the way of making this happen. Let him be the cause of the split, if it comes to pass.

Given that any alliance would require the parties to do a deal on not opposing each other in some parliamentary elections, it clearly creates a dilemma for Labour regarding the nationalist parties, especially in Scotland. But we should not assume that any part of this is going to be easy. Leadership never is (which is why Corbyn is so bad at it). My instinct is that will be possible to do a deal with Angus Robertson in Westminster, rather than Nicola Sturgeon in Holyrood, that sees the SNP agree to stand aside in a certain number of constituencies in return for support in the Commons for devo-max in Scotland as a core priority.

In any case, as you well know, devo-max, rather than either of the men now seeking to lead the party, is Labour’s only way back in Scotland.

Re: A Post-Brexit Plan

Secondly, you need a plan. The notion that Corbyn has no policies is a myth — he has plenty of policies, because announcing policies in opposition is easy. What he lacks is a coherent plan. Despite a pile of ostensibly radical ideas, quintessentially he has no idea how he would go about governing the country, if elected (LOL). What would his priorities be? What kind of institutions are necessary to administer radical change? Who would pick up the phone to first? He would invest, but what would he invest in? What role for local government, or local Labour? Exactly when would he invoke Article 50?

This is how you can distinguish yourself, right now. I think that there exists the makings of a radical, progressive plan which combines a new approach to immigration, devolution, trade and industrial policy (and indeed climate change). Happy to discuss.

But as I said earlier, this election is about character more than policy. If your ability to govern is at the core of your pitch on character, then tell us how you would actually do it.

And again, this move would have a longer term benefit even if you lose. It is the first, necessary step to rebuilding Labour as a governing force, of enabling Labour to be taken seriously again. The public aren’t voting this summer, but they are watching. Tell them something positive and substantive about Labour politics. The post-Corbyn era is not yet upon us, I’m afraid, but we can and must start constructing its foundations now.

You also need to open your eyes about Brexit, Owen. I know why you think it’s a good idea to suggest a second referendum: you have calculated that Corbyn’s confused position on EU membership is one of the few things that his supporters feel uneasy about regarding his leadership.

But there is a problem with making political calculations. Even if you get the calculation right, people can see the cogs working. You can’t fake authenticity, but nor can you pretend it’s not important.

Do you really think that reversing the Brexit vote is the right thing to do, for Labour’s future? I agree with Lisa Nandy that Brexit is a final warning to Labour. Please listen carefully to her speech on this. I wish the referendum had gone the other way, even if we had won by just one vote. But we are where we are. You absolutely must not put Labour in a position where we rejecting the very strong message that the party’s working class base has just delivered to us. That would make us as bad as him.

Let your progressive alliance partners make the second referendum case, if they must, then let the chips fall where they may.

But your imperative is to tell the country that only Labour can make the best of Brexit. Only we understand why people voted the way they did. Only we have a radical plan for giving people more control over their lives and communities.

I don’t know if this would make a difference this summer. But it is the only possible way forward for Labour. You have a unique opportunity to point Labour in the right direction. Win or lose, that would be an achievement you could forever be proud of (and rewarded for in whatever comes next for Labour).

Yours faithfully

Craig