Labour’s new leader has a lot to learn

The public interest requires two things in the official opposition party – that it should hold the Government to account day by day in all areas of policy; and that it should represent a credible alternative, a Government-in-waiting. Both roles, vital in a parliamentary democracy, are designed to keep the actual Government on its toes. Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour Party leadership election throws a substantial shadow of doubt over both of them. A number of Labour’s best performers under previous leaders have stood aside from Mr Corbyn’s team – or just not been invited. The party’s loss is the nation’s, and the fault undoubtedly lies with Mr Corbyn’s brand of left-wing politics. He has spent 30 years not just in opposition to the Conservatives but to successive Labour Governments. 

This chimes loudly with a certain strand in the public mood, which holds the entire class of professional career politicians in disdain. He manifestly does not possess some of the political survival skills, such as how to use the media for his own advantage, which are the mark of the professionals on both sides. So the other side of the coin from not endlessly consulting spin doctors and focus groups is that the question “How does this look from outside?” is never posed. Thus he has already made some image mistakes which have an air of amateurishness.

Not all his policies are unrealistic, and some make good sense. Renationalising the railways and energy companies, neither of which industries are entirely suited to free market competition, is popular; likewise challenging austerity. Putting funds raised by “quantitative easing” into infrastructure, instead of into bank reserves, is economically viable; moderating welfare reform to protect the vulnerable is morally right. But so far these ideas are not sufficient to amount to a coherent programme of government. He has nearly five years to find one; but if not well on the way to doing so within the first three, he may find his leadership coming to an unexpected conclusion.

Nevertheless he has on his side a massive mandate from the Labour rank and file. What he does not have is goodwill from his parliamentary colleagues. The sense that his backbenchers are urging him on to succeed, on which previous Labour leaders have been able to rely, is missing. That sense provides momentum and stability, which can carry a leader from bad days to good ones. Mr Corbyn has to rely instead on the energy that comes from being a natural oppositionist even though he has now become part of the powers-that-be; and on elements of left-wing, even sub-Marxist, ideology that make the cause worth fighting for regardless of what others think. He also has personal strengths – courtesy, persistence, plain-speaking and no lack of self-belief – which make him an attractive public and parliamentary speaker. These are qualities he shares with Nigel Farage, Ken Livingstone and indeed with the Scottish Nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon. Those politicians found the knack of organising what to the political establishment looked like an insurgency, and their popularity is a warning to the establishment not to underestimate what Mr Corbyn could achieve.