RevStu has highlighted a quote from Tom "Bomber Admin" Harris, in which the ex-MP basically says that the only thing that would make voters - in Kezia Dugdale's words - "take another look" at Scottish Labour is to give them what they want, which is independence. (Presumably by "voters" he's not referring to the electorate at large which narrowly voted No, but to Labour's lost voters who mostly voted Yes.) He implies that this would be an unthinkable step, because he is opposed to it as a matter of fundamental principle.
Odd, that, because the New Labour doctrine, which Harris has been signed up to throughout his career, is that the "mature" thing to do is give voters exactly what they want, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you. If you don't, you're wickedly condemning the country to Tory rule and denying the vulnerable people of this land the wonderful, wonderful things that a Labour government can do for them by stealth. (Sure Start! Sure Start! A very low minimum wage! And, er...Sure Start!) It seems that the small print on the New Labour doctrine is that it's only mature to give voters what they want if it's right-wing and British nationalist in flavour.
If only he was consistent about it, Harris' suggestion that there are some lines of principle that cannot be crossed even in search of electability, even if it means "millions will suffer without a Labour government, blah blah blah", would be perfectly respectable. It's essentially the position of the true Labour moderates of old, like John Smith and Roy Hattersley. You tack to the centre to the extent that is consistent with the party's traditional values of equality and social justice, but if that isn't sufficient to win an election, so be it. If you go any further and start transgressing those values, a Labour victory is quite literally pointless. That is, of course, precisely what happened in the Blair/Brown years, which is why Liz Kendall's whingeing about people telling her to join the Tories rings rather hollow. It's one thing for a Labour government, in the name of moderation, to refrain from renationalising industries that the Tories privatised. It's another thing for them to enthusiastically engage in their own round of privatisation. It's one thing for them to not reverse Tory welfare cuts - it's another thing for them to make even deeper cuts. It's one thing for them to not reverse Tory cuts in student grants - it's another thing for them to go infinitely further by imposing tuition fees of thousands of pounds.
Corbyn-mania is essentially the Blairites reaping what they sowed by crossing those red lines. For the first time, it's now possible to clearly say that it would have been better in the long-run for Labour right-wingers if Tony Blair had never replaced John Smith. Under Smith, Labour would have won in 1997 - perhaps not with a majority of 179, but maybe with one of 80-100. They would probably have won in 2001 as well, with the Tories still reeling. By 2005, it's harder to work out what would have happened, because by that point everything had been thrown into flux by the Iraq War, which Smith would probably have kept Britain out of. But regardless of whether Labour had eventually lost in 2005 or 2010 or later, they would not be in the hopeless position they now find themselves, lacking any potential leader from the party's natural centre who can command the affection and loyalty of both the radical left and the modernisers (as Smith did). Why does such a person not exist? Because the party doesn't have a natural centre anymore - just tribes who hate each other's guts.