When James Connolly awaited his execution at the hands of British soldiers in Kilmainham Gaol – 1916, his wife Lily broke down in tears remarking “But your beautiful life James…your beautiful life…” to which the injured and weary Connolly reminiscently replied “But hasn’t it been a full life Lily, and isn’t this a good end?”

In this anecdote I have always found sustenance, and it came up again in a recent conversation with a gentleman who worked on the Diane Abbott leadership bid back in 2010. He remarked to me that in that campaign, and the mutterings surrounding John McDonnell’s sadly doomed 2007 leadership bid, there was always a sense of ‘we fight because we must’. A classic example of the much maligned leftist defeatism, but profoundly attractive all the same. We knocked back and forth the notion that were Connolly alive today rather than being shot he would be put through the rigmarole of a Labour leadership contest – it would have the same effect on his consciousness. Yet in this light hearted discussion it seemed to have slipped our grasp that in fact this was not the case, we had not lost this time round, quite the opposite. We were exactly where individuals like us had always hoped to be, in a position in which we could live a full life in formal politics – a position in which winning would not simply mean we had prevented a Tory government, rather that we had in fact pierced the very horizon of possibility – that something truly transformative could begin.

That might seem an unusual thing to forget, but these are unusual times, and I suspect it will take many years for any of us to get used to the idea that in 2015 the Labour world turned upside down.

Those are years we must secure not for ourselves, but for those coming up, so that they can imagine working class oriented politics as a commonality, for socialism to become one of the dominant binaries in this dogfight that we call parliamentary democracy once more. For that to ever happen, Jeremy Corbyn must be re-elected tomorrow, and I can say with some confidence that I suspect he will be.

Jeremy Corbyn is a flawed individual. A man seemingly in constant protest at the dark arts of political riposte, failing to wear a jacket your mother would approve of. Yet below such cursory concerns Corbyn is the magnificent crisis the Labour Party has long required. Above the maelstrom of personal ambition and collective manipulation of a once proud instrument of working class mass representation, he stands as a relatively unblemished curiosity exuding potential whilst hinting at calamitous confusion.

It was no great surprise in hindsight that the gradual party reforms of Miliband, and now remarkable plans of Corbyn for party engagement both within and without the official structures, would bring a great many broadly sympathetic people home. In order to manage that unwieldy beast you must bear witness to a sympathetic and resolutely open leader, one who can point to an extended history of engaging with and proactively pushing forward such organisations. Corbyn is in essence the only person who could lead such a forward march at this time. The future of the Labour Party, by which I mean a set of people and ideas that can lead us into the half century in much the same way as Attlee et al did in 1945, is somewhere in that tranche of new members, they aren’t sitting in a committee room at Westminster tweeting #SavingLabour.

For a long time Labour were eminently virtuous simply due to the fact they were not the maligned Conservative Party. This created a generation of politicians whose primary role as representatives was to be applauded and welcomed as elements of a broader shift towards the light. For all his very laudable efforts to align with the changing political landscape in the party, this is what Owen Smith is a product of. When Jeremy Corbyn inevitably wins tomorrow, keep this in mind; you can never defeat a popular figure with a moral basis for leadership whilst harbouring nefarious intent.

Via the still unclear, yet decisively regressive motives behind the recent coup, Corbyn has once again ignited that smouldering fervour some refer to as socialism. At this early stage however I believe it is better seen as a perception among ordinary people that there is a simmering injustice at the heart of our society. One which in many forms takes on a right wing slant, but when given voice can be just as easily taken for the forces of advancement on the left. It’s no more complicated than the fact Corbyn is the first to do so for quite some time. Whilst Farage was touring the country from the 00’s onwards telling people immigration is the font of all their sins, the best the left could muster were fringe figures who were often little more than circus acts in relation to the hard graft of daily political contestation.

By accentuating the collective nature that constructed our shared services Corbyn has managed to revisit the dialogue of the commons, whilst articulating the questionable dependency we maintain on the relentless pursuit of profit. In him we have seen the rebirth, on a mass media stage at least, of the English radical. It is in this guise he is very comfortable, but it cannot be his only cloak.

Labour’s fractures might worsen if Corbyn does not rapidly realise that leadership of this burgeoning movement will have to take the form of individual inspiration in some sense. A strongman/strongwoman approach if you will, and by fate’s decree that individual will have to be him. I see little evidence to suggest that the British public are prepared for the levels of hyper localised individualisation that more liberal-left strains support. It is not Corbyn’s reliance on left wing economic critiques that hamper him, it is his occasional inability to see that power used wisely sometimes has to take on a forthright form. Corbyn has survived his suffering, now he must find meaning in it, a meaning that can only arrive by overcoming the basis of the enmity that divides us in the party. For each one of us that will mean something entirely different, but I trust that more shrewd operators such as John McDonnell understand we cannot go on like this and have an understanding of what has to be done.

Part of this overcoming germinates from the desperate need to defeat the economic dogma that very narrowly defines what can and cannot be done. It is in the economic arena that we must categorise the ‘new politics’, not least because it is a subject the media cannot actively deny is in need of radical reform from right or left.

The first and most important stage in this fight is addressing Britain’s absolute inability to discuss tax in an adult way. It will not, and will never be, an easy argument – yet it is the duty of us all to rebuild the infrastructure that made this country prosper, we simply cannot achieve that by ignoring the vital role of fiscal investment. The Conservatives are engaging in managed decline at Westminster, whilst the SNP are facilitating a watered down version in Scotland. A 50p top rate of tax is not going to cut it. The insistence from corporations and the mega-wealthy that they will leave these islands must be tested. The politics of justice must not be held to ransom by the terminally avaricious.

To say the media is bias against Corbyn (or more precisely the left) is not worthy of being referred to as a suspicion, we are not asking to smell the breath of journalists like an anti-heroical Ian Paisley, we simply wish to see a shred….a slither of balance, in a torrent of insults and childish meanderings often fed directly to unquestioning journalists by the Labour backbenches. In redefining what injustice means, namely quantifying it for each and every individual and family, you are losing X and receiving Y, I fundamentally believe we can reimagine this country as a crucible for the revival of an active and disgruntled working class. That is our engine of change, it always has been. If we regain that, the media cannot continue to mock so cluelessly.

Unfortunately in order to do restart this engine the identity obsessed concerns more akin to liberalism than socialism that permeate youth politics and hardly anywhere else will have to be diminished in importance. We cannot regain the trust and energy of the working class and time deprived emerging middle class by telling each and every one of them they are fundamentally bad people due to holding thoughts or feelings that do not fit into an ill-defined collective sense of morality. If someone is wrong, we must be concerned not only with addressing the outcome but the cause of their belief. Such a project takes time, education, and the remapping of the economic landscape in order to be made a core part of our lexicon and practice. These concepts will be difficult to diminish (observe any university based political debate for more than ten minutes and you will understand what is meant by this), but they must be – at least in a sense of the elusive ‘core message’. The Green Party are a model of how to win a university town council ward, not a national election and we should eschew the content of their message that does not regard very important environmental alterations proactively.

The problem at the heart of Corbyn’s political philosophy is the problem of the curiously unsatisfactory nature of achievement. Corbyn is not a man prone to the religion of winning, yet win he must. However we cannot assume that it is Corbyn or bust, this is a long term project and contingencies must be in place to continue it beyond 2020, even if we fail to take power. For many such a remark contains the condemnation of a thousand hangmen, but that only survives the analysis of the cretinous urban narcissists that for so long populated every greasy pore of the Labour Party. If your only political goal is the arrival of a vacuous individual to the black front door in SW1 to dictate to the disadvantaged the quantity of their required sacrifices in order that they can send themselves to a slightly later grave then I do not think this party should cater for you. It is a cliché, but a bloody good one – Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing, and at this moment I want Corbyn to continue the crusade apace. Be strong, lead with vigour and force, and do not defer to the chattering classes who see economic inequality as a debating concept, not a day to day reality which is much better expressed as living on the bread line.

If Corbyn can manage this, we can vastly alter the age we live in, and the sodden land we pass on to those who come afterwards.

Many will feel detached from this referendum, disinterested even. Up until last week I had sympathy for that approach. I am approaching peak political fatigue myself, and I love nothing more than a bit of red vs blue. Yet tomorrow we vote, perhaps in the biggest single referendum any of us will ever have the opportunity to engage in.

Last week a young woman, an MP elected by her community, was brutally murdered in a quiet West Yorkshire street. She wasn’t killed because of atrocities she was complicit in, or personal mendacity leading to injustice elsewhere. She wasn’t even killed simply because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was killed because of her political views, a set of views that include aiding refugees and a commitment to minimising conflict and division. She was killed because underneath our social artifice their still lies a small but active fascist sentiment that permeates throughout the land.

It is impossible not to draw comparisons as a result with the events of the 30s and 40s when fascism and the unending desire for territory reached its zenith in Europe. Those events in some part, but a very decisive part, led to the creation of what has now become the European Union. Anyone who says otherwise does a disservice to the concerted efforts of millions.

Not since the 10 day war in 1956, when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, have European countries gone to war with one another (there have been internal conflicts of course such as that of Yugoslavia).

This may all be a startling coincidence, and peace could simply be the result of US domination of capital and arms. Neither is completely true, and equally neither is entirely false.

I only ask that you watch this video and absorb just how many died in those 6 fateful years between 1939-45 and ask yourself – is removing one of our only proven bulwarks against this a good idea?

Rough estimates suggest 61 million people died during those 6 years. Many of them were non-combatants, the vast majority were Europeans. 388,000 were citizens of the UK and its dependencies. The average age was 23 years old of those who died in combat. Many of horrific injuries. The deaths that occurred later due to not immediately lethal injuries is perhaps as many again.

All you have to do is go and vote…if you think this could not happen again you are repeating the very same delusions many in Europe suffered at the end of the Great War.

I hope you vote Remain. Many whose children, and their children after them, who were never born would certainly envy your opportunity to make that choice.

p.s Nigel Farage is a catastrophic fuck nugget and we should all celebrate any opportunity to destroy the man’s pin striped Home Counties wet dream.

This week Ken Livingstone, ex-Mayor of London and long-time campaigner for those at the sharper end of capitalism’s rusty knife said the following in reference to comments by suspended MP Naz Shah – it was stupid and wrong, and he should apologise:

“It’s completely over the top but it’s not anti-semitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

Ken said other things that are apparently offensive in the interview, largely about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, but they are so blatantly factual that any one finding themselves offended by them is clearly Islamophobic (see what I did there? Read on to see the divine logic).

Ken Livingstone, a very bad lad

Livingstone’s comments were a one day front page story at best – especially given the decades awaited verdict this week apportioning blame to South Yorkshire Police in the case pertaining to the Hillsborough disaster.

How this could possibly have garnered more attention than the race baiting Zac Goldsmith has attempted in his London mayoral campaign requires contortions the likes of which only the British media can manage. This however, I expect. After all – it is the very same media that decided 96 deaths at an FA Cup semi-final were most probably the fault of drunken hooligans.

What disappoints me so much more is to see Labour members, and supposed Labour advocates in the press (special mention must go to Owen Jones here), helping virulently hostile media machines to keep the story going throughout the week. Further continuation of this thread – that bonds together the alleged Labourite anti-Semitism conspiracy – serves only those who seek to destroy Labour and working class representation in this country. These people should really know better. I suppose there are not many column inches in saying ‘calm down and be serious’.

Ken was suspended, and rightfully so. Corbyn has set up an inquiry into anti-semitism and racism in the party, again rightfully so. What more is required here? The media have decided in unison that Labour is now a hotbed of anti-semites before a moment of investigation has taken place, and by extension Jeremy Corbyn must also be an anti-semite, yes? Well as you are likely beginning to understand it is not particularly important wherther he is or not. What is important to his detractors is that he falls on that sword, even if most of the reported incidents occurred before his leadership began.

Here I would like to ask the question, what does it mean to be anti-semitic in the context that someone like John Mann means it, by which I mean a very narrow political-media context? How sharp is the sword destined for the leader of Labour Party’s knape when the term anti-semitism is so carelessly stapled on the backs of those who dissent from the UK line on Israel?

With this territory comes a certain inevitability. Observers may read my subsequent words, and those of others simply seeking to balance out the torrential attack, and think – “he’s clearly trying to mask obvious anti-semitism”. In the face of charges of that ilk no satisfactory justification will ever be provided. I have attended meetings packed with relatively representative cross sections of society on the issue of Israel/Palestine for years, meetings that largely displayed no philosophy more radical than simple peace advocacy. Very few of the attendees felt Israel had ‘no right to exist’ at all – as is often claimed. I was called an anti-Semite for attending those. After the fifth or sixth occasion I stopped hearing it. I believe something similar is happening in our political culture.

But let me say, I am not interested in winning some moralistic debate about the correct terms and accordance for various treaties and myopic 20^th century decisions in a contested land more foreign to me than the Arctic circle. I just want to prevent people from being murdered and having their homes stolen because we have so internalised the idea that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-semitism to a point at which we cannot reasonably criticise these actions. I am not interested in winning the approval of such catastrophically pathetic individuals as Wes Streeting and Luke Akehurst. They would appear as tadpoles in a teaspoon of water. So please call myself and others what you like, I am not the sensitive type.

I see a great deal of evidence both anecdotally and in the current media hyperbole, that attacks such as those laid at the door of Labour this week have served to nullify the term ‘anti-semite’ to the point of near redundancy.

John Mann. King of the gobshites

There will be few who may describe themselves as pro-Palestinian activists who will not have been called an anti-semite on numerous occasions. At this point trying to decipher between those who are principled peace activists, and the tiny minority who are ‘THE ROTHSCHILDS ARE RUNNING THE WORLD’ delusionists is utterly impossible. For decades the tarpaulin of shame has been cast over each and every one of them, unsuccessfully. If you want a serious discussion about this issue then let us have some respect and admit that pro-Palestinian activism is a legitimate and worthy cause, and allow for some media reflection on the imperialism club that is Labour Friends of Israel. Until that day your claims are beyond hypocrisy, they are ashes in the mouths of lemmings.

So when I am told that you can be anti-Zionist, and not be an anti-Semite – I wonder why it is so many people who are the former are referred to as the latter? I can only conclude therefore that an anti-semite, at least in one variety, is someone who critcises the current borders of Israel. If I am wrong then there is hope yet.

Livingstone is most definitely a buffoon. There is little of intellectual merit or even contemporary relevance about discussing whether or not Hitler had Zionist sympathies (for my own money I see no evidence of this, only the fact Hitler was happy to utilise it as an apparatus of manipulation), no matter what you say you are going to end up discussing Hitler in some sort of revisionist light. Ken should know better both as a seasoned politician, and as a man of principle that this would not end well for him, or the party, and would undoubtedly upset a constituency of people who demand respect on this issue. Gladly the Jewish Socialist’s Group  and a number of concerned and prominent Jewish members of Labour have written to express a more balanced approach in recent days.

There is one big aspect missing from all of these balanced accounts however, and that is how the media seek to report this entire debate. Stories such as those detailing the air assaults on Gaza hospitals in 2014  received only cursory attention in the British press in comparison to this week’s pantomime (thankfully Channel 4 were a rare exception), while the moralistic chieftains of ‘sensible’ Labour so vocal this week could not have been quieter in their opposition at the time. Where it did exist, it was meek and cautionary.

Is it fair to take these two events, anti-semitism in British politics and Israeli aggression, and draw indicative comparisons? I would say yes, it most definitely is. The reason I do so is simple. The same individuals today chaining themselves to the fences of social media in opposition at the evil that is Ken Livingstone, were tacitly justifying this barbarity as ‘self-defence’ but two summers ago.

Where lies the moral compass of these individuals? The Nick Cohen’s and Tim Stanley’s of this world? Do they expect us to believe that a foolish statement from a politician is tantamount to the collapse of credibility on the left, yet tangential support for child murder is significant of political maturity? I am no pacifist, far from it, yet I would have to witness irrefutable evidence not seen since Bernadette bumped into the Virgin Mary at Lourdes before you could get me into a conversation about the strategic and moral legitimacy of firing missiles at hospitals.

If those of us seeking balance are justifying anti-semitism, then the logic that defending Israel justifies such egregious attacks, holds true also. You simply cannot have it both ways.

The reason Ken Livingstone will be dragged out for the next year or more for summary tar and feathering, is the exact same reason the bombing of hospitals is swept under the carpet. That reason is the oldest of all, power.

Muslim bashing is de rigueur in this country, it’s almost an entire media sub-industry. Very few people, beyond those with some sense of consistency, find this troublesome whatsoever it seems. Naturally many will opine that each subsequent attack has ‘gone a bit far’, but you will never see a week long media circus and resignations aplenty over it. Let us take the case of Zac Goldsmith’s race baiting in London again, where he claimed the Labour candidate and Muslim Sadiq Khan did not want to talk about Tamils when in government and expressed a desire to tax jewellery and heirlooms in leaflets directed at Hindus. Policies one onlooker stated “seemed as though he picked the brains of an adviser and has played on the anxieties of the south Asian community.” I have neither the time nor inclination to quantify the relative column inches, tweets, and television minutes the two tales received in comparison – but I am willing to make a healthy bet that the one which gave succour to those wishing to dethrone Corbyn received a great deal more.

These power dynamics, and resulting slavish devotion to ignoring them from our pensmiths and politicians, create perverse situations such as Saudi Arabia, a despicably anti-Semitic country, being treated as friends and welcomed with open arms. It’s the same reason Hillsborough will finally reach some sort of conclusion in the coming years, yet those murdered by the state in Northern Ireland will die without answers.

Power and politics, that’s all it is. Keep your eyes away from the petrol being poured on the fire, it’s the flames that are important…..nothing more. There are people holding anti-Semitic views who are members of the Labour Party. No one can deny that. There are also members of the SNP and Conservatives who have publicly exhibited such inclinations, facts that appear fundamentally disinteresting when not coupled with an emerging coup opportunity.

As long as we focus on Livingstone’s peculiar understanding of history, not the junior doctors leaving the country because they are being overworked and understaffed this perpetual idiocy will continue, and with it so too the intelligence vacuum that is Tory rule will continue.

After all, it makes for a better headline – and that’s what really matters…

Addendum: I did not have time to comment on the actions of John Mann here.

In recent weeks there has been an attempt to pitch Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party as one predicated on the votes and sentiments of the urban middle class by the ‘moderate’ wing of the party, who are running an unending eulogy for Tony Blair in the process. The basis for this argument is as follows:

1. They were mostly student champagne socialist types. The kind of people at UCL now refusing to pay rent on single rooms which at the lowest end cost £542.36 per month. Sure they could afford it if they stopped guzzling bottles of Krug of course.

2. Corbyn represents a constituency (Islington North) full of hipsters, students, and lefty lawyers with a weekly podcast about their bicycle, whilst also having been the beneficiary of an independent school education. Unlike Tony Blair who represented George Formby’s flat cap, and graduated from Barnsley technical college with a BTEC in pigeon racing.

3. Blair’s position and policy foundation was one based on realism and the pragmatic concerns of working class people, such as introducing Private Finance Initiatives to the NHS which are now crippling hospitals across the country. Corbyn’s is based on mad ideas like nationalisation of vital public services, the kind of ideas only found in peasant socialist countries like the Netherlands and France.

In short, all of this is nonsense. Unadulterated opportunism from a set of self-entitled political activists and commentators who scraped a 2:1 in political science and now believe they know the one way, the only way, to win elections.

Corbyn in his moment of victory

Here’s why:

1. Let’s look at the data:

Corbyn received 59.5% of the vote, winning 251,417 votes. The total number of votes cast in the election was 422,664. Among party members (245,520 voters) he received 49.6% of the vote, among affiliates (mostly trade union voters equalling 71,546 voters) 57.6% of the vote, and among the controversial (broadening democracy is only non-controversial when it’s in Iraq) registered supporters (105,598 voters) who paid £3 for the pleasure he won 83.7% of the vote.

That’s a lot of middle-class urbanites who joined the party, paid £3 to vote, or signed up for their affiliated union to elect a man who was relatively obscure even a few months before and help him win in every single category.

If we move the question more keenly towards how working class voters in general see Corbyn now he is leader then it is impossible to say that at this moment in time the result would be good. Broaden that out somewhat however and replace the name Corbyn with any political leader and you will get a negative result overall. More interestingly still a recent Panelbase poll found that when asked ‘Who would make you more likely to vote Labour?’ the results were Jeremy Corbyn 28% Tony Blair: 31%. Hardly a resounding victory for a three time election winner against a man who has led the party for less than six months.

The claim that most of the new members who have joined since Corbyn’s leadership are ‘high-status’ urban dwellers seems to have some veracity, yet surely this is simply a comment on the way politics is conducted in this country, and how for so long the fundamental concerns of working class people were ignored to the point at which such people felt politics was not for them? That is not going to be rectified overnight by the election of Corbyn.

We can clearly dismiss the idea that Corbyn’s rise to power was on the back of Goldsmiths art students, and in regards to working class popularity it would be a fair and measured statement to say that no one in UK politics is banging down the doors of the Rovers Return just now. If this is the best attack so called ‘moderates’ can muster then Corbyn’s stay in power will last quite some time yet.

2. It cannot be denied that Corbyn is another privately educated leader, a demographic that dominates positions of major influence in our country’s politics, but that is even truer of Blair, as such it is a moot point in comparison. Corbyn does have the notable honour of not being Oxbridge educated at least, a factor which dominates our Parliament with just under 30% of MPs having attended one of the big two in the last parliament. Given so many of those who are targeting Corbyn on the charges of being a champagne socialist are disciples of the Blairite Progress wing paid for by Lord Sainsbury, I think it is safe to say this criticism has more than a whiff of opportunism.

On to Islington North, now this is a persistent one. Very clearly this is a lie. Islington in general has one of the highest rates child poverty in the country and this is mostly concentrated in Corbyn’s constituency. Further to this, Islington is the 14th most deprived local authority in England hardly what you would call a constituency dripping in wealth and out of touch voters. The constituency also contains exceedingly expensive homes of course, often inhabited by the sort of aspirational left leaning voters Blair did so much to court, which makes me wonder why now Corbyn is a leader such high income earners are in for denunciation from the Mandelson’s of this world? Opportunism again? Surely not…

3. Here we must both understand what working class now means, if anything, and which policies such people tend to support.

As we all know the working class died out with the advent of smartphones and games consoles, so is the resplendent wealth of even the lowest earners in our society. Had Marxist advocates of redistribution in the early 20th century known class would be abolished once average income reached £26,500 p/a they may not have bothered, after all such an income could afford you a one bedroom flat in Leith, Edinburgh on a £100,000 mortgage. Assuming you don’t bother having more than one child and they are alright on the sofa after the age of six, you too can join the great British middle class.

Tony Blair telling those who elected Corbyn to ‘get a heart transplant’

In 2013 the British Social Attitudes Survey found that 60% of people see themselves as working class. Without investigating too deeply how people understand that term, and how much it is a cultural concept, we can at least assume a lot of people felt their hard work was not rewarding them with sufficient financial benefits to feel as if they are middle class. Once we accept this then the idea that your first concern should be attracting middle class votes, as working class ones are locked in, becomes somewhat suspect. It often felt the New Labour technique to protect their base was to roll out John Prescott and Alan Johnson to talk about how much they like the football. I can say proudly that in the opening months of his leadership Corbyn visited my hometown of Scunthorpe to speak to steelworkers whose jobs are under threat. That’s working class engagement, being there not only for those who might vote for you, but being seen to care about those who always did. If any examples of Blair doing something similar exists I would like to see them.

Immigration is where Corbyn’s class detractors have a point, even if data does suggest attitudes to this variable are more about age than class. Thus far his leadership has dealt nobly with the issue of refugees traversing Europe and treacherous seas, however – this accounts for a small proportion of the new arrivals to the UK. As a party we are avoiding immigration as a topic because Corbyn’s team has seen the same statistics we all have. Immigration was mentioned by 46% of respondents a core concern in a recent poll, making it the top issue overall. In our traditional heartlands immigration is the topic we are further away from a significant and vocal proportion of our voters than on any other issue. If Corbyn wishes to pitch himself as burgeoning voice for the ignored working class he will have to tackle this issue head on and begin a campaign to convince such voters that immigration is not only a benefit to our economy, but a fundamental part of what makes us remarkable as a country.

During Blair’s time in power and the few years that were book ended by Gordon Brown it lost five million votes. This cannot be attributed purely to the migration of Labour’s core working class vote, most obviously because the middle class has grown in that time. What we can say however is that the net effect of Blair’s time in office was to lose working class votes with each subsequent election, by 2005 on a grand scale. Where did most of these voters go during that period? The Liberal Democrats. The recession of 2008 increased the number of working class voters going Tory in 2010 – something they largely maintained in 2015, though by this time Labour had regained plenty of those Lib Dem voters. That clearly suggests there is a significant number of working class and younger low income voters who consistently move left/centre-left.

On policy we can see in the data that when asked which issues are most important to them and their family the consistent differences between the two general class blocs are:

• Working class voters deem the economy the most important issue, but they are 9% less likely to cite it than middle class voters.
• They are 6% less likely to be concerned about tax issues.
• Welfare and benefits is a concern for 24% of working class voters, as opposed to 9% for middle class voters.
• 21% of working class voters say immigration is a concern for them and their family, only 13% of middle class voters say so.

If we take the above as intuitive of some elusive working class consciousness, then I dare say the party best representing working class concerns in the last election were UKIP.

Let’s break it down to more specific issues however:

• Working class people are 10% more likely to favour government intervention in the rental sector – a policy Corbyn approves of, Blair opposed.
• 70% of working class voters, and as it happens 74% of middle class voters, are in favour of the government controlling rail prices – a policy Corbyn approves of, and Blair opposed.
• On maintaining the NHS as a state run entity, 84% in both social grades agreed. A policy Blair actively drew back, and again….Corbyn approves of.
• 68% of working class voters feel the railways should be nationalised, and 71% believe the same about energy. Again…well, you get the idea.

The conclusion here is overwhelming. On a great many issues that the general public, and particularly working class voters, tack left on – Blair tacked right. Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand appears to closely align with both the core Labour vote and a wider working class electorate on many issues of public service provision and economic policy. I am beginning to get the feeling proponents of the Islingtonian prosecco proletarian image have not really looked at the facts.

The wider point here is simple. Corbyn’s leadership should be defined and appreciated under its own merits, and not those of a declining party dogma that had its day in the sun, albeit an electorally successful day. Blair did a lot of important things to take children out of poverty and increase educational opportunities for working class kids (including myself). That cannot, and should not, be denied.

Corbyn at the Durham Miner’s Gala

The argument that the Labour Party is a machine for the winning of elections first, and a vehicle for moderate social change second, has been lost. Not only did this thesis fail to perform in the 2010 leadership election, it was utterly embarrassed in the 2015 leadership contest (I should know, I wrote this imploring people to vote for Andy Burnham)

Both of these leaders wish to bring along a politically invested middle class, the difference is one did it by acceding to most of their often short sighted concerns, the other hopes to do so by exampling the necessity of serious social change.

Let us not forget that Blair’s New Labour was famously built around the idea that ‘everyone is middle class now’, and if they were not then they certainly wanted to be. A phenomenon I did not really recognise until I came to university and realised that Blair and Mandelson’s experience of the working class was people like me, people who they assume educated themselves for financial advancement, and not because they might be just as smart as them. In this rhetoric the student from a low income family works four nights a week to ‘better themselves’, not because it’s that or the dole. As Mark Steel pointed out “when politicians who believe everyone is middle class see vast decaying housing estates, they must think someone’s having a giant dinner party with a Victorian theme”.

Corbyn may not be the son of Fred Dibnah that I have been praying to come and lead the Labour Party for over a decade; despite this he seems to know the working class exists. When it comes to dear Tony I do wonder if the concept passed him by altogether.