This view is predicated on an analysis of Labour's election defeat which concludes that the electorate did not trust Labour to manage the economy well, that Labour appealed too narrowly, that Labour did not occupy enough of the central ground, that Labour did not have enough to say to the "aspirational classes", whatever that means. Many have claimed that Ed Milliband was "too left-wing" - "Red Ed" they dubbed him.
There seems to be an unchallenged assumption that in order to become electable, Labour needs to occupy more of the traditionally Conservative ground. Over the course of the last parliament, and especially since the election, Labour has adopted the policy of austerity and largely accepted the economic argument put forward by Osborne and company. They even happily adopted the Conservative line that Labour had spent too much, despite the fact that until the banking crisis, Labour had run a smaller deficit than Thatcher did. And yet, the Labour front bench were falling over themselves to say they'd spent too much and to distance themselves from everything to do with the previous Labour government. I was even more astounded on Sunday to see Labour's acting leader say that they would not oppose the changes to social security and tax credits in last week's budget.
If this analysis is correct, then yes, Jeremy Corbyn would be an electoral disaster. However, I just don't buy this narrative. While the reasons for the Conservative election victory are many and complex (for example, the Tories successfully played on the fear some parts of the English electorate had of what a Labour-SNP coalition might look like), I would like to suggest that the reason for Labour's defeat was much more straight-forward... they were just the same as all the others.
During the election campaign, I chuckled as the suggestions on Twitter read "Similar to Ed Milliband: David Cameron, Nick Clegg". It told a truth that few were willing to admit. Reading the manifestos of the Conservative and Labour parties, I struggled to work out where the difference was, especially on economic policy. Both offered cuts and austerity, both offered little to the most vulnerable in society, both tried so much to occupy the so-called "centre ground" that they stood for very little. George Osborne's budget last week could have been lifted straight from the Labour manifesto, and that is very telling.
When the Labour Party stops standing up for the poorest and most needy in our society, is it any wonder that Scotland opted for the (more "left-wing") SNP and that England agreed better the devil you know?
Perhaps Labour's key to electoral success might not come in another carbon-copy leader and more of the same austerity narrative. Perhaps Labour's best chance lies in returning to its founding values, in a leader who stands up for the poorest, in... dare I say it... socialism.
And so I may have just done something foolish... I've just registered as a Labour supporter (it only costs £3) so that I can vote for Jeremy Corbyn as leader. I'm not doing this because I admire Corbyn's leadership skills or agree with everything he says. I'm not doing this because I believe he is the solution to all Labour's problems. I'm doing this because this country needs a Labour Party which is prepared to stand up for the most disadvantaged. This country needs an effective party of opposition. We've already got a Conservative Party - we need a party which offers an alternative vision.
Maybe thinking that Corbyn could be electable is foolish, maybe those who say Labour should seek "power rather than purity" are wiser, but then again, maybe the "foolishness" of wealth re-distribution is just the sort of foolishness we need to become a fairer society.
And they'll whisper to you, "socialism's dying...
you cannae sell it at the supermarket till."
But while there's fifty left like me,
we'll make bloody sure they see
that ideals are the hardest thing to kill.
