JEREMY CORBYN’S decision to put himself forward for the vacant Labour Party leadership could put the cat among the pigeons.

The North Islington MP is the very antithesis of a political opportunist, taking a stand on the basis of his firm socialist stance.

His record speaks for itself from the 1970s when, unlike many graduates who offer themselves to one transnational corporation or another, he trained as a union organiser with public service union Nupe, now part of Unison.

This early identification with the working class has exemplified his record as an activist and, since 1983, as an MP.

Corbyn has never drawn a line between the two activities, often finding his way to the House of Commons via a union picket line or a community protest.

His understanding of imperialism meant that he took his place in demonstrations against apartheid South Africa and defended the right of Cuba and Venezuela to choose their own path.

It also ensured that he joined other comrades in challenging his own party in government when it pursued illegal aggressive wars.

But times have changed. The parliamentary left has been culled.

Successive general election defeats left the Labour Party susceptible to the ministrations of the New Labour snake-oil salesmen who insisted that only their brand of pro-City politics, combined with bureaucratic centralism replacing internal democracy, could carry the day.

While history has pronounced its verdict on this anti-working class dogma, many disciples still hold sway in Labour’s parliamentary ranks.

Diane Abbott, Corbyn’s neighbour in constituency terms, pointed out at the outset of the leadership election that all those smiling for the cameras had two things in common.

All bar Mary Creagh had been special advisers and they all came from one wing of the party.

“Not a single one of the current candidates opposed the Iraq war, not a single one supports taking back the railways into public ownership, not a single one opposes ‘austerity-lite’ and not a single one opposes the welfare cap,” she said.

Abbott recognised that this bland uniformity, with a political wrinkle here and there between the chosen few, means that millions of Labour supporters will not have a horse in this race.

Without Corbyn lining up to offer an alternative, the current field is more likely to send the electorate to sleep than enthuse it.

Andy Burnham’s combative defence of the NHS in the election campaign encouraged hopes he may offer something different and there were suggestions, albeit unsubstantiated, that he was the unions’ favoured candidate.

Yet no sooner was he installed as front-runner than he reverted to classic New Labour triangulation tactics.

Believing that he had cornered the party’s left wing, he reached out to the right, telling The Observer that Labour must focus on regaining trust on three key areas — “our economic credibility, our relationship with business — which is linked to that — and, thirdly, immigration.”

No mention of any of the issues cited by Abbott.

Just a regurgitation of the New Labour gospel that the party’s salvation lies in greasing up to the City and blaming migrants for falling living standards, unemployment and homelessness.

If that is all Labour has to offer, it might as well jack it in now.

Corbyn believes that he can put forward a more credible and principled approach that would appeal to party members and the electorate.

Labour’s MPs should at least give him the opportunity by giving him the 35 nominations necessary to stand.