Now What for the Labour Establishment?

Unless the entirely unexpected happens - not a first for 2016 - Jeremy Corbyn is set to be reconfirmed as Labour leader tomorrow morning. As that announcement is made, a section of the party will plunge into abject despair. Some shall leave (though I hope most stay), and others must have a serious think about what they do in the party now. Just like the left has done for the majority of Labour's history, in fact. For the most visible wing of our party's establishment Jez-sceptics, the Parliamentary Labour Party, this casting about for purpose and direction is set to play out publicly. In fact, the truth is on this issue the PLP are very divided. Uniting them was an alliance of convenience. Jeremy achieved unity, alright: he firmed it up among his opponents. But as the reality of the leader's win sinks in and his position strengthened, that glue forged in a common opposition could come unstuck. Indeed, following a week of rumour and petulant declarations, the PLP's differences over "managing" Jeremy are likely to come to the fore, and it won't be long until they rub up against each other in tension.

You can discern four tendencies among our Westminster cohort and these have more or less been around since the beginning of Jez's time in office. The main difference between then and now is the reality of the new (with a small n) Labour Party weighs heavy on their thinking. The first of these factions are typified by those Dan Jarvis rumours, that former shadcab members who earlier resigned on the hour, every hour back in June are coming back to serve for the good of the party. That some are willing to put aside very serious reservations and criticism to ensure we have a functioning front bench is welcome, even if one or two might be doing so with an eye to the leader's job themselves.

The second and third groups differ in that they're not reconciled to the new reality (which, to be truthful, is the same as the old new reality), but share a certain quietude. The more obviously defeated and despairing of the two feel like the stuffing's got knocked out of them. Everything is hopeless, there's very little point, so one might as well focus on survival. Local politics, the love-bombing-the-CLP thing, and clearing up dog shit has never looked so important. Heads down at Westminster but heads up in one's patch, the invisibility in one is in proportion to the visibility in the other. Give it a couple of years and a few local campaigns for local people later, and perhaps the selectorate shall forget previous things said and done.

It's the other group Jeremy and friends must pay some attention to. This is the section of the party establishment in it for the long haul. Set to be weakened by a slew of members resigning in a fit of pique, their game is to build up a head of steam around a set of policies and values they believe pass the "electability" test. It will be critical but a touch more constructive than the recent nonsense, using debate rather than chicanery, and recruitment over stitch up, or, to be more accurate, be seen to be doing things this way. In short, for them it is a long march through the institutions, a Gramscian slog for position over direct, frontal assaults.

And lastly, it's our rather boring self-publicising chums from core group hostile. If they had political nous and an instinct for self-preservation, they too would recognise that a period of silence is necessary. Or perhaps for the good of everyone if they learned to sublimate their anger and turn it outwards against the Tories. Lest we forget, they're the ones responsible for Brexit. They're the ones who threaten to permanently weaken the British economy while doing untold damage to our social fabric. The usual suspects have gone quiet of late, though Alan Johnson has talked a good rebellion this last week. Perhaps it's too early to tell, but the penny might well have dropped: constantly running to the press and slagging the leader off in public doesn't make one's position or politics stronger in the party. In fact, it invites its very opposite.

With our overlapping but discernible factions, the question now is how much they work at cross purposes to one another. Continued backbench sniping might inconvenience the leadership, but it might jeopardise the work done by shadcab members trying to make it work. Is the latter likely to look upon this assistance favourably? Likewise, shadcabs and hostiles might appeal to the heads down brigade for assistance with this, that, or the other, and might not find it forthcoming thanks to timidity/disinterest. Not the recipe for a happy family. And already, the unity is cracking. Chuka Umunna wants the Home Affairs Select Committee, probably as part of the shadow shadow cabinet wheeze some are wedded to but, ooops, so does Yvette Cooper. Two leading "moderates" openly scrapping for position isn't the most seemly of sights.

That is where the Labour establishment is. Dethroned and declassed, which way they'll go no one knows. Eternal rebellion, non-cooperation, and deselection. Or cooperation, stabilisation, and survival. What is it to be?