I wrote this recently:
Labour has to be an opposition. It must have a substantially different approach to the Conservatives. It must embrace the counter-cyclical investment that is so desperately needed at present in housing, business, sustainable energy and (perhaps most of all) people, who should have a right to debt-free education. In the process it would put finance and big business in its proper place, where it is treated as very significant, but not the real power in the land.
The party also has to say that outside the EU it would have the ability to create a long-term vision for a sustainable future, using (if necessary) the power of the Bank of England to create money to invest for the long term at a time when interest rates are (and are likely to remain) exceptionally low.
And it must say that it welcomes migration if those who come are willing to embrace the UK as their home. Learning English, offering a skill and being willing to work where work is needed can be and should be the conditions of seeking to live in this country. Migration would be a contract, not a right, refugees and asylum status apart. Norway has done this; so should we.
Labour could be committed to jobs, education, investment and controlled migration and be true to itself, but if, and only if, it has a leader who will realise that this is what large numbers of people want from someone with the pragmatic skills of leadership needed to deliver the vision.
Get the person who combines that vision and that leadership now and Labour could win, even this year. Fail to do so and we face a bleak path towards the destruction of the state as we know it. The stakes could not be higher.
That's a tough agenda for a party to embrace, but if Labour is to be the counter power that Paul Mason is calling for without specifying what he means by that in practical terms then this is what I think Labour needs to take on.
I was not popular for saying the above.
But what else is Labour going to say in that case?