Just how exceptional is Jeremy Corbyn's victory? Dr Martin Farr compares the scale of Jeremy Corbyn's victory with those of earlier Labour Party leaders for The Conversation.聽 An earthquake isn鈥檛 any less of an earthquake for its being called such repeatedly. At least this one was predicted, eventually. Some indications as to just how seismic is the election of Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) as leader of the Labour Party really is may be found by measuring it against the party鈥檚 historical Richter scale. For all the justified astonishment, Corbyn鈥檚 win isn鈥檛 uniquely remarkable. Slightly more than Tony Blair鈥檚 57%, Corbyn鈥檚 59.5% is a shadow of Neil Kinnock鈥檚 two wins: over Roy Hattersley, Eric Heffer and Peter Shore in 1983, and over Tony Benn in 1988. Kinnock鈥檚 successor John Smith achieved 91% in his 1992 contest with Bryan Gould, whose challenge was avowedly tokenistic (something it shared with Corbyn鈥檚). The difference is that Kinnock and Smith were expected to win. The political identity of the new Labour leader is genuinely historic. Depending on one鈥檚 political disposition, since its emergence as a party of government in 1924, Labour has been too sensible, or too timid, to elect a radical as leader. The frequently mis-cited Michael Foot had been a conspicuously loyal cabinet minister for five years (, Corbyn鈥檚 mentor). Even George Lansbury (1932-5), the predecessor with whom Corbyn has most in common, was a national figure who鈥檇 held ministerial office. Not just his turn Corbyn鈥檚 victory reverses a generational shift. As perhaps befits a house of legislators often accused of , intakes of MPs are often referred to as 鈥渃lasses鈥�. Labour鈥檚 class of 1945 produced four leaders (Hugh Gaitskell 1955-63, Harold Wilson 1963-76, James Callaghan 1976-80, Michael Foot 1980-3), and 1970 two (Neil Kinnock 1983-92, John Smith 1992-4). We might have thought that the had long since graduated to long trousers, after Gordon Brown followed Tony Blair out of office and parliament 鈥� but it turns out there remained . No major party has ever had a permanent leader who hadn鈥檛 planned to be leader (or possibly even want to be). Modest in all matters, Corbyn meant it when he said he鈥檇 not expected to win, and that it was merely 鈥溾�� to follow Diane Abbott (2010), John Prescott (1994), Gould, Benn, and Heffer and offer the party a clear alternative to candidates of the 鈥渞ight鈥� or 鈥渃entre鈥�. The climate of politics in 2015 鈥� internationally as well as nationally 鈥� has proven to be more propitious than it was for the earlier campaigns, and Corbyn is the beneficiary. As with Kinnock, Corbyn spent years refusing to serve on the front bench, but only one Labour leader has had as much ministerial experience as Corbyn (that is, none): Blair. And when Blair became leader in 1994, Labour had been out of office for so long that few MPs had any ministerial experience at all. In 2015 it was Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper鈥檚 ministerial experience that turned many against them. Defenestrated and demonised Whereas Conservative MPs have seldom baulked at ridding themselves of leaders who proved to be liabilities, Labour鈥檚 more collectivist political culture meant it was . Labour leaders have unwillingly relinquished office only through death, and indeed, the only party leaders to have died in the last century were Labour ones: ( in 1963, in 1994). Demonisation is another matter. From Ramsay MacDonald (1922-32; 鈥溾��) to 鈥溾�� himself, Labour prime ministers are usually regarded as having let the movement down. (The effect of Blair鈥檚 three public warnings against electing Corbyn is testament to his standing with members.) The scale of Corbyn鈥檚 victory means that he cannot be thought of 鈥� as Blair was, not least by Corbyn himself 鈥� as something grafted onto the party, and susceptible to antibodies. Instead, Corbyn鈥檚 near-60% vote share has shattered the most plausible case for an internal challenge on grounds of legality or morality: there weren鈥檛 anything like enough to have swung the result. Bigger than ever Labour is, as its new leader has , bigger than it鈥檚 been 鈥渇or a very, very long time鈥�, in large part due to him. There are now around , more than the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties , and more than Labour has had since 1999, when Blair was still an asset. (Curiously there were still 131,608 people eligible to vote who chose not to.) Some things haven鈥檛 changed. On February 12 1906 Keir Hardie鈥檚 election as Labour鈥檚 first leader was declared. On September 12 2015, a special conference announced that Corbyn and were leader and deputy leader. At each event, the only people who spoke in an official capacity were men. At least in 1906, women weren鈥檛 allowed to participate in parliamentary affairs 鈥� 鈥� but 97 years after (limited) female suffrage, and 22 years after Labour itself introduced , anyone following the results event on radio would be forgiven for thinking that no woman was present (none are now in the five most senior positions in the Parliamentary Labour Party). 2015 can now be added to 1918, 1945, and 1979 as one of the most significant years in British politics in the last hundred years. Corbyn immediately promised that . Much already has, and more may yet with the inevitable aftershocks. And if 2020 sees Corbyn as prime minister being greeted in the White House Rose Garden by 鈥� or, as Corbyn might prefer, 鈥� not entirely dissimilar will have brought them together. is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History. This article was originally published on . Read the . published on: 14 September 2015
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}