IT TAKES a particular mindset to interpret Cruddas inquiry data, as Jon Cruddas does, to mean that Labour lost the election because it was seen as anti-austerity.

Cruddas points to 58 per cent of respondents identifying deficit reduction as top priority and backing the need to “live within our means.”

It would be amazing if that were not the case given the shared message from all major parties in England and Wales.

For the purposes of the Cruddas inquiry, Scotland is not only another country but possibly part of another galaxy.

“It has a different political tradition and its voters are more progressive and collectivist-minded than in England,” he pontificates, although Scotland was a Labour stronghold until the last knockings of New Labour government.

Scottish voters used to find a home for their “progressive and collectivist” aspirations in Labour, but this is no longer so.

Moreover, the process of disillusionment with Labour began during the Blair/Brown governments which lost five million voters in an inexorable all-Britain decline from 1997 onwards.

For Cruddas, “the English tend to be more individualistic and have a more “small c” conservative disposition.

But even he notes that, alongside balancing the books, 43 per cent of voters would back a “political party that redistributes wealth from rich to poor,” while 60 per cent believe that “the economic system in this country unfairly favours powerful interests.”

That figure rises to 73 per cent for Ukip voters and 78 per cent of Labour voters, perhaps illustrating lost Labour support to Ukip.

What Cruddas identifies is nothing new — the electorate’s ability to embrace apparently contradictory positions at the same time.

He sees voters as “economically radical and fiscally conservative” but insists that “first comes fiscal responsibility, then economic reform,” which points him in the direction of the Ed Balls/Chris Leslie position of accepting the Tory line that spending cuts are central to the priority of reducing the deficit.

“On the basis of the data, the public appear to think anti-austerity is a vote loser. We cannot ignore that,” says Cruddas.

Surveys and opinion polls can be interesting, but they are not set in stone. Changed circumstances alter perceptions.

The biggest change in circumstances has been Jeremy Corbyn’s participation in the Labour leadership race and the ability of millions of people to witness on TV and other forums the different story that he has told.

Not just the content but his willingness to challenge the culture of spouting bland platitudes about hard truths, tough decisions and sympathy by saying precisely what he means and relating his principles to the problems of working class daily life.

The public response to Corbyn has encouraged many voters, especially an often alienated younger generation, to believe that politicians are not all the same and that a different world is possible.

His decision, along with nearly a quarter of his Labour colleagues, to vote against the Tories’ Welfare Reform Bill, while his three opponents abstained in pro-austerity solidarity, showed a mature understanding of the political situation in Britain.

The Tories have only a small majority in the House of Commons, but they plan a privatisation bonanza this year that will overshadow 20 years of public asset sales.

That won’t be stopped by parliamentary abstentions or nit-picking speeches. It will require mobilisation inside and outside Parliament to halt the Tories in their tracks.

Difficult to imagine three out of the four Labour leadership aspirants taking that on. It has to be Corbyn.