Since certain people appear to be seeing Blairite conspiracies everywhere at the moment, it probably would be divisive and self-serving for someone who self-defines as a Social Democratic Fiscal Conservative"* to respond in kind to today's attack by Len McCluskey and Paul Kenny on Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.**
So instead of lambasting my comrades in the Union movement, can I try to be constructive?
Coming at all this from the other end of the telescope changes your perspective. While the left are outraged, I am puzzled by their anger.
That's because, while I strongly agree with the Leadership, I don't see any reason to declare that the likes of "In the Black" Labour have won the party to our programme, not least because our "programme" is currently more of a first sketch than a detailed landscape. Trust me, this isn't a policy coup, Blairite, Black Labour, or otherwise.
What the leadership have done is say we'll start in Government with the situation the current lot leave for us, and that with a tight fiscal inheritance there will not be room to both unpick the choices of the immediate past and focus on increasing employment.
Given that, they say creating jobs must be the priority. Quite right.
Yet the weekend's acceptance that the next Labour government will begin where the Tory government ends has led to two union general secretaries, who represent mostly private sector workers, threatening disaffiliation because the Labour party threatens to embrace a policy priority of… creating more private sector jobs.
If I were advising a Union GS, I'd be telling them that any pay deals they reach with the current government will obviously not be unpickable by the next Labour government, that the major political challenge for the left is to win the battle over the 2015-19 policy agenda, and so the smart move would be to use leverage gained by tacitly accepting Labour's decision not to unpick 2010-2015 decisions to secure a strong commitment to a more expansionary post-2015 policy.
Further, I'd argue the announcement over the weekend says nothing about the spending commitments Labour will make in it's next manifesto, so there is ample room to argue that the next Labour government should go further and faster in using the state's resources to "create jobs".
What's more, I'd point out that the Leadership, and indeed the wider party, would find it very very hard to resist calls for investment led expansion, especially if couched as a drive for full employment and private sector growth.
Obviously, I am not advising a Union GS, and Messrs McCluskey and Kenny have instead decided to invite the Leadership of the Labour party outside, presumably for further detailed discussions.
I think this is a tactical error on their part. There is little appetite in the wider party for internecine warfare, as Luke Akehurst says. Also, you should rarely enter into a fight your opponent feels he must win. The Eds can't be seen to lose this tussle. Next, McCluskey and Kenny have invested so heavily in Miliband and Balls that to turn on them would be self-harming.
Last, and most important, I think they've misread the actual politics and the policy so are fighting on the wrong ground (On this, I find myself agreeing with Jackie Ashley).
By picking a battle they're very likely to lose, they may also lose ground on the post-2015 agenda, which is what really should matter to them.
Clearly, all this is coloured by the fact I agree with Ed Miliband and Ed Balls on this issue.
To secure the agenda I prefer, the best thing I should do is to take my own advice, and focus not on the fight over what we do up to 2015, which is a dead end, but on what we should do afterwards, which is what might win us the next election
I want a fight about Labour's policy priorities. I think it's important.
But the fight I want is about the future, not the past. So please, Mr McCluskey, Mr Kenny, can we fight about that instead?
I promise, you're much more likely to win than I am.
* I know, it's dreadfully pretentious. Still, since I'm sick of being defined simply by a leader who left politics four long years ago, it will have to suffice until my attempts to popularise "Sennite" meet with more success.
** It would be particularly churlish to link to pieces like this one, by Owen Jones, called "Why the Labour left should welcome the appointment of Ed Balls" and append some cutting remark. Unfair too. The all powerful Blairites have clearly got to Balls in the meantime, as he's well known to come over all knock kneed and lily-livered when faced by pressure from Blair and Blairites.