While the Jeremy juggernaut carries all before it, there are layers of members and Labour voters who aren't entirely convinced. To use the Gramscian language, he may have hegemonised the left but there are those in the selectorate of the centre and the right who have not been won to over to his historic bloc. Contrast this with Blair who, whatever you think of his politics, did exercise political hegemony - at least for a time - over those to his left. When you're on 53% and enjoy a 32 point lead over your nearest rival, some Jez supporters might not think this is worth bothering with. Yet Jeremy himself clearly believes it to be of some importance. The most immediate, for practical purposes, is to draw the sting from anyone on the right plotting mischief. If most "moderate" members accept the result, the scope for PLP shenanigans becomes more limited - especially with the redrawing of constituency boundaries and a likely move to mandatory reselections under a Jez leadership. Will your Labour MP sign a no-confidence letter when they know a constituency full of Corbynites holds their political future in its hands?
Assuming Team Jeremy want to head this off at the past, there are a number of questions that must be addressed to build political hegemony before and after the leadership election. Here are a few.
1. Dealing with hostages to fortune. It's a sad, depressing fact that too many on the left are careless about who they ally with. A case in point this last week has been the stories about unsavoury friends in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Of course, anyone who takes an interest in and is critical of Israel for any length of time will eventually get criticised for imputed anti-semitism. All the more reason why left wingers shouldn't turn a blind eye/fight shy of noted anti-semites. Jeremy's championing of the Palestinian cause is consistent with the rest of his politics. Associating with the likes of Paul Eisen and other holocaust-denying riff-raff is not. The "revelations" of these associations, first aired with not a small quantity of chutzpah by the Daily Mail, have barely registered. But if he is leader and when Corbynmania dies down, this and similar about the likes of Hamas, about Hezbollah, about Iran, and so on, are going to come back to haunt him. These questions need an answer - they cannot be allowed to stand without Jeremy and the party itself sustaining reputational damage.
2. Appealing to the better off. The trend across all Western representative democracies is that the more affluent you are, the more likely you are to vote. This is why many on the centre and right of the party are extremely sceptical of the belief that large numbers of habitual non-voters will be drawn to the ballot box. True, Scotland at the independence referendum and after shows it is possible, but improbable. Besides, thanks to the vagaries of our wonderful electoral system more affluent voters tend to a wider distribution, meaning that their vote is likelier to count more than the less well-off, who are disproportionately located in safe Labour seats. What Jeremy needs is a response to this electoral arithmetic. What can his programme promise middle income earners and successful small business people that might turn their heads away from the Tories? If Jeremy and his team can come up with a credible response that goes beyond abolishing tuition fees and sorting out the railways, then a lot of the hesitation - the so-called head/heart dilemma - many members feel conflicted by will be addressed.
3. Anti-austerity in local government. As everyone knows, the axeman is coming yet again for the Local Government Grant. Under Ed Miliband, Labour-controlled authorities operated the so-called "dented shield" approach to cuts. Set a legal budget and manage the cuts the best you can without harming too many of our people. That these cuts fall disproportionately on Labour authorities and thereby the poorest and most vulnerable tells you all you need to know about the Tories' recent conversion to One Nation rhetoric. Most councils and councillors followed the national lead on this. Unfortunately, there proved to be little in the way of active opposition to cuts - Labour has not had much of a political price to pay for administering them. What then will Jeremy's attitude be to Labour-run councils and austerity in the future? In his New Settlement for Local Government document, he argues for "maximum democracy for local democratic processes". Are councils going to be left to determine their own attitude to dealing with the cuts, or will they be expected to not set a legal budget if it involves passing them on? Either path is messy and fraught with opportunities for Labour's enemies, and will inevitably lead to internal convulsions. It's not a pressing issue immediately, but for party members who serve as councillors - collectively a body with quite a bit of clout among the membership - they would at least appreciate some clarification.