Jeremy Corbyn: Not just the moral winner

Since Jeremy Corbyn rushed to a massive 22 point lead in the polls (according to a Labour Party internal poll reviewed by the Mirror) the right wing media and Blairite contingent within Labour have come out in force to explain how Corbyn would ‘destroy Labour’s electoral chances.’ His policy portfolio, bringing back the social democratic ideology which Labour was founded upon and reversing the party’s slide to the right since 1997 is seen as unrealistic by his critics and fatal to the political discourse which the Tories and his leadership opponents have adhered to.

Criticism of Corbyn has focussed upon two arguments. The first is that his policies will not work; the second that he will not be electable as leader in 2020. Concerns about his electability raised by his opponents centre around his refusal to follow the Conservative agenda on policy and accept the transition to the right which political discourse has taken since Blair.

The first argument, suggesting that his policies will not work, is an argument which must be tested relative to the functionality of the alternatives which his opponents propose. The suggestion for example that removing benefit caps and ensuring minimum provision for the poor, unemployed or ill will damage the economy too greatly to be seen as a valuable option presupposes that the 60 confirmed deaths due to Iain Duncan Smith’s reform of the welfare state are an acceptable cost against the benefit of economic growth. It supposes that the rapid growth of food bank dependence (41,000 people in 2010 to upwards of 1 million in 2015) is acceptable wastage from the pseudo capitalist system which both Corbyn’s Labour opponents and the Tories propose.

Furthermore, the supposition that rail renationalisation would fail asserts that a system with rising prices and poor service quality; due to the oligopoly of private providers which has developed since the 1980s is a functional model – and that Britain could not provide a service which Germany and Japan do perfectly well, and in the interests of the taxpayer.

Abandonment of Trident is also a sticking point for many, who believe that a nuclear deterrent is necessary in the modern world regardless of the moral arguments involved. One must question however, the logic of an independent missile system which cannot be discharged without USconsent. Particularly when it exists in a country which is so economically and tactically significant to the US that were they to abandon the system they would still enjoy the benefits of perpetual nuclear protection from a threat which continues to exist only in fiction, even were it to become fact.

Evidently, the argument that Corbyn’s policies could or would not work better than the current system is incredibly flawed. However this reality does not necessarily win elections and Labour supporters believe that having their party in power is necessary in order to provide a successful alternative to the Tories. As such the question of whether Corbyn is electable in the current climate is a significant one.

This argument can be dissected by understanding how his policies correlate with public opinion; and by understanding the main motivators behind which box the public cross on Election Day.

A YouGov study prior to the election found that the public overwhelmingly support renationalisation, or the continued nationalisation of hospitals; schools; rail; roads; prisons and the postal service. Crucially the survey offered the option for respondents to choose the option ‘whichever (national or private) maintains standards.’ Regardless of this option, the majority of the British public still want nationalisation for nationalisations sake. Therefore, far from being unelectable, Corbyn stands as the only Labour leadership contender with a populist policy on public services and utilities.

In addition to the objective popularity of the policy, Corbyn is the only candidate who directly opposes Cameron’s programme of NHS privatisation; increased use of academies and the sell off of Royal Mail. This is crucial when Labour placed fourth of the six main parties in an Ashcroft poll after the election on conveying genuine values and believable promises in what they would seek to do if elected. Corbyn offers a chance to put clear daylight between the two main parties and rediscover an identity which was clearly absent in the last election and saw rapid growth of other opposition parties who fared better in the poll.

Nationalisation and a removal of welfare state sanctions under Corbyn also offer solutions to the three main voter concerns in the last election – the NHS, job provision and the cost of living. By taking services under public control, utilities and infrastructure can be returned to the public good, both providing employment and controlling the cost of living. Reluctance to act drastically in this way has previously led Labour down the path of the Tory agenda despite the CLEAR POPULARITY of alternatives which the party traditionally identified with, to the detriment of the party. With 54% of the British public taking an anti-austerity stance after the election, this popularity is likely to grow.

Clearly Corbyn is a positive candidate, but the evidence shows he is also a functional and electable proposition. A break from the Westminster consensus would create clear, much needed daylight between Labour and Conservative and would break the steady slide to the right since Blair. The degree to which this is realistic can be seen in the furore created by a single poll, the right are running scared. Ultimately, regardless of the feasibility of Corbyn, voting against austerity and for equality is simply morally valuable, but there is no doubt that as well as being morally laudable, he is electorally significant.