 Britain's political establishment revel in the claim that Jeremy Corbyn's leadership at the Labour Party was an abject failure and a moral disgrace. They like to assume it can be treated as a blip in politics as usual and as a traumatic accident that can be dismissed. However, new data suggests our political class, the press, the Prime Minister and Keir Starmer might be taking a risk by trying to expunge Corbyn from mainstream politics. Paul Sturz, Redfield and Wilton polled 2019 Labour voters who they think would make the best Labour leader, Keir Starmer or Jeremy Corbyn. And voters in both the 18 to 24 age bracket and the 25 to 34 bracket chose Jeremy Corbyn. So asked who they'd prefer or who they think makes the best Labour leader, 56% of 18 to 24 year olds said Jeremy Corbyn. That's compared to 29% who say Keir Starmer and 46% of 25 to 34 year olds say Jeremy Corbyn which is compared to 37% who say Keir Starmer. Now, obviously, if you're looking at the totality of that across all of the age groups, it's not amazing results for Jeremy Corbyn. None of it suggests, ah, he should be leader again. But what it does show you is that there is still a significant minority in this country and it's very much, based on a generational divide who think that Jeremy Corbyn was a good leader of the Labour Party and don't necessarily want him to be leader of the Labour Party again, but will be absolutely outraged that he has been expelled essentially from the parliamentary Labour Party and across the spectrum of the political class is basically positioned as beyond the pale. And if you have a majority of 2019 Labour voters under 34 who say he's a better leader of the Labour Party than the current leader of the Labour Party and this is someone who everyone has said, oh, do we even consider liking him? That makes you a racist, that makes you deluded. That's really, really not healthy for democracy. And I think essentially you're disenfranchising a lot of people there. Do you think that sort of liberals in this country who think that they can just sort of, Jeremy Corbyn was an embarrassing accident, they can sort of basically put him in a wardrobe and say, no one should ever consider this person a politician again or a reasonable member of polite society. If you like him, you're a weirdo. Have they considered the effect that has on a whole generation of younger people who this polling show actually think he did a pretty decent job? No, is the answer. No. And what's really worrying, Michael, looking at those statistics is basically, Stalmer is kind of evens with Jeremy Corbyn amongst under 54s. Actually, the figures for Corbyn are actually surprisingly good. So 45 to 54, I think it was about 32%, that's one in three. That's quite a few people, right? Yeah, 32%. We're not talking like school kids here, we're not talking university undergraduates, we're talking people 45 to 54. People with mortgages, recurring responsibilities, maybe even grandparents, they've got to think about saving for a pension, et cetera, et cetera. And even those people are like, you know what? Yeah, I prefer that guy, one in three. So yeah, it says evens amongst under 55s, that's a big problem for Kirstalmer, Michael. That's a big, big problem. And you know, there's been some sort of disagreement about this, Kirstalmer was on the Jeremy Vines show, Monday, I believe it was. And from what I interpreted in his comments, because the question asked was about Corbyn losing the whip, the way he answered it felt to me like he was answering a question about the day that Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party, it was his personal decision. Now I tweeted about that, people can go listen to that link or you can go listen to Jeremy Vines show from Monday, I think about two hours in. Kirstalmer's whole sort of political brand is that he isn't Jeremy Corbyn and yet 50% of Labour voters at the last general election, it's 10 million people. You know, the media, David Aronovich and The Times and The Guardian and They Observer, they all want you to think it's two people and a dog. It was 10 million people. No, those 10 million people weren't all racist and anti-Semites and unhinged and irrelevant. No, they weren't. It's a big chunk of British soul society. And you're right, I think the fact that those people are now painted and presented as irrelevant, aren't allowed to basically be represented in public life, shows that we don't live in a democracy, shows that we live in effectively a one party state. Don't we? If 10 million people can't decide something politically, if they're not allowed to participate, they aren't viewed as legitimate actors. How can you say that's democracy? If they're not legitimate. How can you actually know that those views can't be represented by a major party in a general election? How's that a democracy in a meaningful sense? I think, look, I'm gonna be real as well, Michael. I think the question about who would be the best leader, Jeremy Corbyn should not be leading the Labour Party anymore. He had two cracks of the, it's true, right? He had two cracks of the whip. He was destroyed by the media. The man deserves a rest. He deserves a private life. People around him, his loved ones, his family, you can only do that for so long, right? So I don't think he should be leader and Keir Starmer shouldn't, but I think my God, it really does reflect on how poor the Starmer leadership is getting. And so quickly, Michael, so quickly, in October, he was sailing. He was sailing. And if you think about the six months period, he's had since then, I genuinely can't think of a politician who's done such a terrible job, such a U-turn in terms of approval ratings, rhetoric policies in six months. You might say, Joe Swinson, but I don't think she came in with kind of high ambitions and the media blowing smoke up harass. With Starmer, he came in and he had a really impressive beginning, really impressive four, five months. And then it's just capsized. This is like a rubber dinghy just turning upside down. Now he's in the freezing water. And Jeremy Corbyn's on a, you know, a shore nearby. He's going, Keir, let me help you out. And Keir Starmer's going, no, no. If you grab me, I'll drown. Keir, you idiot. This is the way out. Jeremy Corbyn's electoral coalition of 2019 was 10 million people billed on it. Don't dismantle it. I think that's such a good way of putting it. I mean, let's look at the overall results, actually. So this is a cross-age group. So who would make the best Labour leader, Keir Starmer or Jeremy Corbyn? All respondents, 45% say Keir Starmer, 38% say Jeremy Corbyn. Among women, it's really close. 42% say Keir Starmer, 40% say Jeremy Corbyn. Among men, there's a bigger gap. So 50% say Keir Starmer, 35% say Jeremy Corbyn. That's people who voted for Labour in 2019. Now, as you said, Aaron, this isn't an argument to say, oh, we should therefore make Jeremy Corbyn leader of the Labour Party again, because he is less popular among those voters than Keir Starmer. Also, of course, someone from Keir Starmer's team would be quite right to say, we don't only care about their popularity among 2019 Labour voters, we want to build out on that. We care about his popularity among 2019 Tory voters who might potentially come back to the party. That's all correct. That's quite right. The point I'm making, and I think you're making as well, Aaron, is that this might be a minority, but it's a very significant minority. And if you want to build on, exactly as you've put it, Aaron, if you want to build on that coalition and make a party and a platform, a movement that can defeat the Tories at the next general election, you're going to have to treat that significant minority with some respect. And I just say it would have been so, so easy for Keir Starmer to build on that. And instead, he's just put two fingers up at young people, put two fingers up at a huge proportion of Labour's core vote, and it's not going to turn out very well. At this moment, which of the following individual do you think would be the better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom? Boris Johnson, 50%. That's plus two. And Keir Starmer, 27% minus three. So that's since just a week ago, actually. So that's quite a recent change. And Johnson's lead of 23 points is his biggest since June 2020. There's a very real possibility the main local elections are going to be terrible for Labour. When I say terrible, I don't mean they're going to crash and lose loads of seats because 2017 wasn't great either. It was actually the low point for Corbynism when it came to local elections, but I don't think they'll do well in Metro, Maro elections. I don't think they'll do well in Wales and Scotland, particularly Scotland. And I think what will happen is that Starmer and the people around will blame Corbyn. They'll say, well, we haven't detoxified the party enough. I think that's kind of written in the stars. And Keir Starmer the other day said, we've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to go from the terrible defeat we had a year ago. Hold on a second. In 2019, Labour got 32% of the vote, right? In 2015, Labour got 30% of the vote. And yet Jeremy Corbyn, I think eight months into his leadership, you didn't give him that privilege. It was a worse defeat, Keir. It was a worse defeat in terms of percentages and in terms of losing Scotland. And you decided after eight months amongst 160, 70 of your colleagues that Jeremy Corbyn didn't deserve more time. And yet you're asking for more time. Again, double standard. Again, hypocrisy, which I think are actually things that can be leveled with a great deal of legitimacy when it comes to Keir Starmer. And there's a simple thing, which Jeremy Corbyn pulled off in 2017, which basically nobody can talk about, which is that in the 2015 election, there were 4 million, 3.9 million UKIP voters. Everybody assumed they would all go Tory. Everybody, right? If Labour could get 20% of them, great. I think in the final analysis, I think basically it broke the Tories two to one, not even that. So Labour, for every two Tory UKIP voters, they were getting from the 2015 lot. Labour were getting one, which was massive. That was the reason Labour did really so well. You know, yeah, increased turnout, yeah, younger people, but a really large number of former UKIP voters went Labour. And the party has no answer for that, because wait, he's critical of the default common sense on foreign policy. Wait, he doesn't hate immigrants. Wait, he wants to improve public services. These are all the things that we have been saying to ourselves and to the press and to our members for decades, which working class people, working class people don't want. And it actually goes back, Michael, to what we were talking about earlier, and I forgot about it, I want to bring it up, which is why was the media so obsessed with bringing Nigel Farage into the conversation over the last 15 years, was because they're so privileged and they're so immersed in like this, effectively aristocratic London-based society, it's a media aristocracy, it's about 1,000 people running the country, 10,000 people to borrow the kind of a metaphor which has been previously used in terms of how do you understand an establishment. And Nigel Farage was so convenient because you didn't actually have to give working class people or people from the regions or people who are vulnerable and ostracized a voice, you just gave it to Nigel Farage and he became this stand-in and this conduit for basically all the criticisms of the establishment and the status quo and the EU and Westminster and business as usual. And of course, that's one set of arguments, but there were a number of others, but they didn't want to do that because that'd be too much work. And so I think what Corbyn did in 2017 with winning so many UKIP voters over has screwed up so much of their common sense, Michael. And I think it's so profound and so deep that they've got no way back from it. You know, I think it would really mean them having to renounce some really core economic and political and intellectual commitments, which I don't think they're willing to do. Even somebody like Rachel Reeves, Johnny Reynolds, you know, they're clearly moving left when it comes to economic policy, but in terms of how they want to frame it, they believe, I think just as much as Kirstama, that people that voted UKIP in 2015 will never ever vote Labour. They voted Labour in 2017, right? And you've got to work out why and you've got to reproduce it. I don't think Kirstama's the man to do that. Sorry. I mean, they are trying to do that, aren't they? But they're just trying to do that with social conservatism as opposed to... That's the ambition, of course, yeah. Radicalism or isolationist foreign policy, whatever. They understand that's the problem, right? I mean, we agree, you need to impact those Tory voters in 2019 in these lead voting constituencies. Nobody's denying that's the problem. What's super strange is that, hold on, we have a baseline where that did happen in 2017, was pretty successful, and nobody wants to talk about it. And as long as Labour doesn't want to talk about 2017, they're not going to win anything. How can you? If you've got an example of, wow, we won 12.5 million votes, we increased our share of the vote by 9%, but no, of course it doesn't tell us anything remotely interesting or relevant or pertinent to how we can do it again. Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing you could possibly do. And what's even more worrying, Michael, is that Kierstar, when he was asked about his poor ratings, he said, we lost the last election because of antisemitism. It was an issue. Labour didn't deal with it properly. Of course, communities didn't vote Labour because of it, but the toys didn't win because of antisemitism. Any data out there shows that's clearly incorrect. Clearly, it was Brexit. Yes, it was Corbyn's personal brand. It was in fighting. It was the fact that Boris Johnson was offering certainty about what happened straight after the general election. It was nothing to do with antisemitism. Yeah, maybe like 5% of people. 5% too many, by the way, but that's not the point. So if your analysis of why you've just lost is completely wrong and you're not willing to even countenance that this other thing where you did really well might have some relevance to what you're trying to achieve, you haven't got hope in hell. Like you're flying blind. You're walking around in a dark room looking for a black cat which doesn't exist.