Corbyn’s own views have not much changed since 1983, when he appeared, wild-eyed and hirsute, on the national scene. But the world looks very different — above all, it is less threatening. In the early eighties, the West was engaged in perhaps the most dangerous phase of the Cold War. Trade union power was untamed. The threat of a return to high inflation frightened not just business bosses but Everyman.

Those memories have faded. Those particular dangers have disappeared or diminished. Vladimir Putin may be a nasty bit of goods, but his Russia is not the globally predatory Soviet Union. Britain should upgrade Trident, since nuclear proliferation is unstoppable. But, with even a Tory government slashing the defence budget, Corbyn’s plans for unilateral disarmament seem less far-fetched. It is the same with Corbynomics. Quantitative easing has so altered the terms of debate — and the inflation threat is now so discounted — that his plans to print money sound quite beguiling. And renationalisation of the railways is very popular.

Corbyn is wrong because socialism is wrong. The market alone, not the state, has the information to determine productive economic outcomes. The economic role of government is to provide a light but stable framework for enterprise to function. The trouble is that these basic principles, like other conservative principles, have not for years now been enunciated by the Conservative party. Indeed, the government, itself — as part of its strategy of tacking left — espouses an egalitarian rhetoric that implies a causal link between the free market and poverty. 

Such failure of nerve by the Conservative party, resulting in reluctance to expound or defend conservative ideas, did not prevent its winning elections. But, confronted by Corbyn, it now leaves it vulnerable. The ragbag of Trotskyists, anarchists, union activists, poverty campaigners, Green obsessives, animal rights insurgents — potentially to be joined by the socialist SNP and Islamist radicals — lining up behind Corbyn are not to be underrated. When he promised in a recent article in The Times to “pursue [the Tories] at every turn and focus our energies on a massive growth in campaigning politics” he should be taken seriously. He can afford to be so nonchalant about his chances of residing in Downing Street because he intends to besiege it. What he ultimately offers is what the hard Left have always offered: revolution.

The question is, where does that leave the Conservative party? If anyone believes that a media-driven, frothy, soft-focused approach to Corbyn and his allies is adequate, they delude themselves. It will not be sufficient to call for the “moderates” to make their voices heard. Moderates generally practise their moderation moderately, shyly, timidly and opportunistically — and never more so than in the Labour party and the unions. The hard Left are past masters of entryism, and in this case they will be entering from the top. Unless Corbyn is ejected almost at once, it will take years of splits, purges, rows, and counter-purges before a different market-friendly, non-Marxist alternative emerges. The answer to revolution is always, in the end, counter-revolution. Offering it is the next Tory challenge. It must come, of course, by the use of ideas, not baton rounds — but counter-revolution, of any kind, is not for wimps.