The phantom threat of Corbyn 2.0
Photo byA More in Common poll shared with my colleague George Eaton in his Morning Call newsletter considers how a hypothetical Jeremy Corbyn-led party would perform at the polls. It suggests the 'JC Party' would receive 10 per cent of the vote in an election held today, cutting into Labour by three points, and the Greens by four.
Labour is four points behind Reform right now, but with the new JC Party on the scene Labour would end up seven points behind.
In 2018 to 2019 I commissioned a lot of hypothetical surveys about Brexit. I drafted scenarios and put them to the public. How would you vote if Brexit was delayed? How would you feel if Theresa May was still prime minister and delayed Brexit? How would you vote if hard Brexit were on the ballot? It was unreliable stuff because it all depended on hypothetical prompts, taking the respondents too far from material reality.
The biggest flaw with More in Common's survey is simple: the Jeremy Corbyn Party isn't real; it hasn't accrued baggage; we don't know who its hypothetical candidates would be or how badly organised it might be. Respondents wouldn't approach the survey in the same manner as they would at the time when it came to cast the ballot.
Prompting it as Corbyn-led too can be both a blessing and a curse. It's asking voters whether they'd vote for Corbyn were he on the ballot. It's making a genuine left alternative a personality contest. That tells you something about how popular Corbyn is. But it doesn't tell you what you want it to tell you: the real appetite for a left alternative.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
I am struggling to think of any moment in recent history where hypothetical polling bore out in reality. In 2019 the poorly named, poorly branded, poorly organised Independent Group got off the ground to pretty favourable opinion polls: even before they announced they announced the would contest elections, it was sitting at 10-15 per cent. It ended up winning 3 per cent in the Euro elections a month later.
It was a dud. When the stakes were real and the party had time to reveal its colours it just wasn't so popular anymore.
This 10 per cent for Corbyn tells us there's an appetite for something with a high profile name attached. But like with the Independent Group – later Change UK – its raison d'etre may be eaten up by parties already in situ. Like the Lib Dems did with Brexit in 2019, the Greens may do as The Left Flank in 2025. It's notable that most of the hypothetical damage a Corbyn party does is not to Labour, but the Greens.
Which brings us to my final point. The appeal of the Greens is not the same as the appeal of a left alternative. Green success in a not insubstantial number of locales comes off not being a hyper-left force, but a hyper-localist, hyper-environmental force. There's a good argument that deprioritising that in favour of leftism will net it new support in the immediacy. But not without possible losses. It becomes muddy.
[See also: These disability benefit cuts are about to bury Labour]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Decision on Hartlepool's nuclear future could be made next year
A decision over whether to bring new nuclear reactors to a north-east power plant could be made next year, says local Labour nuclear power station is due to be decommissioned in March 2027, but private firm X-energy UK has drawn up plans to install and run 12 Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) on the site, which developers say will provide a "similar" amount of electricity to the current plant's power output.A company spokesperson highlighted the benefit of existing skills and land "already earmarked for nuclear".Jonathan Brash, MP for Hartlepool, said he was "very much hoping" for a final decision this year or in early 2026 - with the site up and running in the early 2030s. The AMRs would be built externally and then installed on site to generate can be used as individual units, to power high-energy facilities like AI data centres, or combined in 'four-packs' to increase power generation more current plan is to install three 'four-packs' at the Hartlepool site, generating nearly 1GW of energy. Nuclear investment Brash said he believed Rachel Reeves' spending review had given a "huge boost" to the proposed plans."The Chancellor has set aside £30 billion for new nuclear investment," he pointed out."I'm very much hoping we can get some final decision in 2025 or early 2026. "If that comes to pass, there will be a few years for development, and in the early 2030s, we'll be up and running."X-energy's UK corporate affairs spokesperson, Leon Flexman, said Hartlepool was the right venue, capitalising on the region's nuclear know-how."It's a particular good location because of the existing nuclear power station, the expertise, the skills - and there is land available that is already earmarked for nuclear," he added AMRs create high-temperature steam, which could be used to de-carbonise Teesside's heavy polluting industries. 'Nuclear culture' However some have raised concerns over the potential gap between the existing plant shutting down and the new AMRs becoming functional, even if the plans are Emden, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the government should act now to ensure skilled jobs and local nuclear expertise are protected."How do you make sure those high-paying, highly-skilled jobs in these power stations stay in the area? "With the promise of new nuclear - if indeed it is going to come," he saidEchoing Mr Emden, Chris Batty, a Unite trade union representative, said it was vital the skills and knowledge he and his colleagues at the nuclear power station have amassed are preserved."If we don't get a decision to get new nuclear power on this site we are going to lose all those skills. We are going to lose the nuclear culture." Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Our benefits system isn't helping people with mental health problems
There are moments in politics when you have to say something people won't want to hear. This is one of them. Our welfare system is in crisis. By 2030, one in every four pounds raised through income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits – more than the entire UK defence budget. In increasingly dangerous and uncertain times, no one could claim that this is sustainable. Drastic action is needed, and after a year in office Labour have finally cobbled together a set of welfare cuts. Sadly, their ham-fisted plan solves nothing. There is growing evidence that what we're doing isn't helping people with their mental health For a start, they barely stem the flow of people onto benefits. Three quarters of a million more people will join the sickness benefits rolls this parliament. And £5 billion in savings sounds good – until you realise the bill is rising to nearly £100 billion. It's a drop in the ocean. What's more, while you don't often find me agreeing with the Labour left, this plan is also deeply unfair. The new assessment framework is so badly thought through that it could have been designed by a random number generator. 77 per cent of people with arthritis could lose their PIP (Personal Independence Payment) entitlement. So could 62 per cent of those with heart disease. Meanwhile, fewer than half of those with anxiety look likely to miss out. Worse still, the mobility element of PIP – the one that allows people with ADHD to qualify for a new car through the Motability scheme – hasn't even been touched. To get the bill down properly, what's needed is a fundamental rethink about which conditions should qualify for long-term financial support, and why? When I first became shadow welfare secretary, one of the statistics that most shocked me was that the majority of new disability claims in this country are now for mental health issues. Most frighteningly, this rise is partly being driven by young people – people who should be in the prime of their lives. Before I entered politics, I campaigned for better mental health care. I fought for parity of esteem between physical and mental health. I have no doubt that reducing the stigma around mental illness in society has saved lives. But at no point during this fight do I think we intended for young people suffering bouts of depression and anxiety to be signed off to a lifetime on benefits. In fact, there is growing evidence that what we're doing isn't helping people with their mental health – it's fuelling isolation, loneliness and dependence. We know that good work brings purpose, structure and connection to someone's life, and a 22-year-old placed on long-term sickness benefits due to anxiety may spend the rest of their working life out of the labour force. That's not just bad for the economy – it's a tragedy for that young person. Of course, people struggle during periods of poor mental health. But do those conditions generate the same kind of practical, day-to-day costs as, say, life in a wheelchair? That's what benefits were designed to support. It's time to say it: we've been getting it wrong on benefits for mental health. Research published by the Centre for Social Justice today shows that by narrowing eligibility – focusing support on those with more severe conditions – we could save nearly £9 billion a year. That's before you even count the enormous economic benefits of someone in their 20s going through life earning and contributing, rather than sitting at home. This isn't about denying anyone's distress. Conditions like anxiety and depression are real. But they're also treatable. Imagine what could be done if even a tiny fraction of that £9 billion were reinvested into mental health services: expanding talking therapies, scaling up social prescribing, and funding the next generation of mental health research. This will cause a fight. People have spent years campaigning for mental health to be treated like physical health, and I was one of them. But if we are going to create a sustainable welfare system, this is a fight we're going to need to have.
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ex-Labour MSP Neil Findlay slams Keir Starmer's welfare cuts
Now a consultant, Mr Findlay told The Herald: 'I question the sanity of these MPs. First of all, they will lose the moral high ground. But secondly, it is incomprehensible to me, even just out of self-interest. 'If MPs vote for the bill, there is no way it will enhance their chances of reelection. They are living in 'cuckoo land' and need to wake up and smell the coffee.' The Herald understands that 12 MPs, or one-third of Scottish Labour's Westminster contingent, have backed a 'reasonable amendment' opposing the government's flagship welfare legislation. Starmer's proposed cuts to welfare will see a tightening of who is eligible to claim PIP. Mr Findlay resigned his party membership of 35 years in March over the 'vindictive and brutal' cuts, which he said revealed party leadership's 'sneering contempt' for the poor and disabled. In an open letter to Sir Keir, Mr Findlay wrote: 'The reality is that Labour will be lucky to come third at the forthcoming Scottish election, will lose power in Wales for the first time and faces being routed at the next UK election and this will be down to your disastrous tenure as leader. "MPs who continue to support your agenda are turkeys voting for Christmas.' Mr Findlay echoed those comments, telling The Herald Sir Keir had 'betrayed' Labour's working-class values. He said: 'I dealt with Starmer in 2018 when I was Shadow Brexit Secretary for Scottish Labour and he was Shadow Brexit Secretary for Labour at Westminster. We got on okay and had a decent relationship. He knew his brief, and I respected him. 'When he ran for leadership, he made a range of pledges which were not worth the paper they were written on. He took the membership for mugs, and has betrayed the values of the Labour Party.' DWP Minister Liz Kendall is behind the proposals. (Image: James Manning/PA Wire) Mr Findlay warned that Scottish Labour would suffer at the next Holyrood elections if the welfare cuts move forward. He noted: 'Labour had a very wide margin of victory in 2024, but it was very shallow. There was no love for Starmer, people weren't running towards Labour, they were rejecting the Conservatives.' 'Anas Sarwar would have been measuring curtains for Bute House last autumn, but they've certainly been put back in the box now.' 'Starmer has betrayed so many people,' Mr Findlay added. 'WASPI women, pensioners, disabled people, to name a few. 'On Tuesday, he announced that defence spending would rise to 5%, but is cutting social security payments for people with disabilities at the same time. It is disgraceful. Read more: A third of Scottish Labour MPs now back rebel amendment against welfare reforms Benefit cuts will push 250,000 into poverty, Government impact assessment warns I went behind the scenes of Westminster - here's the problem facing Scottish Labour Mr Findlay added: 'People have basic needs; housing, food, local services. If you face competition for these resources; for housing, for dental appointments, and school places, it is all too easy to point the finger at someone else, rather than the broken system. 'Labour needs to come forward with robust proposals to address the NHS and housing crises.'
