The next Labour leader must resist the temptation to scrap or keep Corbynism completely

The sweet spot is somewhere in between – and the candidate that finds it is likeliest to win

Two phrases are dominating the left of the Labour leadership contest: “continuity Corbyn” and “Corbynism without Corbyn”.

The former is straightforward and aimed particularly at Rebecca Long Bailey: the idea being that her pitch so far has been to offer nothing different from Corbyn politically or stylistically. This has been bolstered by her hiring Momentum chief Jon Lansman to direct her campaign, as well as her awarding Corbyn 10/10 for his leadership skills (a rating I’m not sure he’d even have given himself). While her team do not use the phrase, it’s certainly the quite loud subtext of their pitch.

However, the more interesting conversation being had on the left of the Labour Party right now is about whether what is needed in Labour’s new leader is Corbynism without Corbyn. The problem, though, is that there isn’t clear agreement on what the term means.

For some, it means all of Corbyn’s politics – domestic and international – but without his long history of acting as a millstone on them. It also means transferring his political style – the defensiveness, the factionalism and the bunker mentality – to a fresh face. This minimal definition of Corbynism without Corbyn is the kind seemingly espoused by candidates who attributed Corbyn’s failure to media bias and Brexit, rather than to Corbyn himself.

The weakness of this approach is obvious. A lot of talent was kept off Corbyn’s front bench because they weren’t factional players, and a lot of people were promoted beyond their skill set because they were. Who you know should never be more important that what you know in progressive politics. Talent matters, and should be nurtured across factions in service of the party.

When this doesn’t happen, it is the leadership that suffers. When those who are supposed to be working for you are instead working to settle factional scores (and even intra-factional ones), it leads to the kind of ineffectual staffing that led the Corbyn project to fall apart.

Others believe Corbynism without Corbyn is about keeping the bulk of his domestic politics but trying to stay as quiet as possible on international issues. They also want to junk Corbyn’s abrasive political style, as well as the organisational incompetence they believe characterised his tenure. By keeping the basic economic radicalism but changing the way it is communicated, these people believe they can keep the heart of the socialist offer Labour members so want, but sell it better to the electorate.

They also calculate that, by keeping the focus on domestic politics, they can avoid having to too closely address security issues, which Labour members often file under foreign policy. While all the candidates (with the possible exception of Jess Phillips) are offering some form of continuity with Corbyn’s economic radicalism, none wants to repeat his disastrous response to last year’s Salisbury poisoning that shook trust in his ability to protect the country from hostile foreign agents.

The question the leadership contenders are asking themselves is: what is Corbynism – or what could it be – without Corbyn? What can they do differently, while keeping on side the members who elected Corbyn twice with a vast mandate? How can they bring the Labour Party better into line with the country while still appealing to Labour’s voter base?

There is a sweet spot still to be found between hoarding and junking everything – and the candidate who gets closest to this spot is likeliest to win. Whether they can then convince the UK that Labour has changed will be the next and more pressing challenge.