Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of Britain’s Labour Party was not surprising as he was well ahead in the polls for quite some time. However, having the veteran left-winger at the helm of the party is bad news for the centre-left in Britain as it represents a throwback to the past.

Labour was tempted once before to go down that road. Soon after the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 Labour swung dramatically to the left and elected Michael Foot as its leader. At the subsequent election in 1983 the party received its worst ever electoral result – 27 per cent of the national vote. It took a further 14 years before Labour became electable again, having spent a total of 18 years in Opposition.

When Labour did change, under Tony Blair, it won three consecutive general elections, in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Mr Blair is in fact the Labour Party’s longest-serving prime minister and is the only Labour prime minister to have served two full consecutive terms. Mr Blair won three elections in a row precisely because Labour positioned itself towards the political centre and managed to reconcile its progressive principles with the market economy. People can criticise Mr Blair as much as they want for the war in Iraq, which is understandable, but he has a reasonably good record as prime minister with a number of achievements both in domestic and foreign policy (obviously not Iraq).

Mr Corbyn, unfortunately, represents the old-fashioned far left-wing of the Labour Party and the party’s chances of winning the next general election are now extremely remote. At the last election in May, voters rejected Labour because they believed Ed Miliband had shifted to a certain extent to the left, so logic dictates that voters will resoundingly reject Mr Corbyn, that is, if he is still Labour leader at the next general election, or unless the new leader decides to adopt pragmatic centrist policies more in line with the average voters’ aspirations.

Mr Corbyn’s policies include a withdrawal from Nato, the scrapping of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a lessening of Britain’s role in the world, the nationalisation of Britain’s railways and utilities if necessary without compensation to shareholders, massive public spending, high borrowing and high taxation.

Furthermore, he is ambiguous about Britain’s membership of the European Union, which is really contrary to what all European social democratic parties believe in and he has a history of anti-Americanism, which is really not in Britain’s long-term interest.

While it is good, and indeed admirable, to concentrate on how to reduce social inequality and poverty, focusing almost exclusively on this is certainly not enough to win an election

The scale of Mr Corbyn’s victory – he won this election with 60 per cent of the vote in the first round of voting – has to be acknowledged. He appealed to the party’s grassroots’ strident opposition to the Conservative government’s austerity measures and their belief that social inequality in Britain is on the rise.

He also received considerable support from the young, who have no idea about what happened in the 1980s when Labour turned to the left, as well as massive backing from the trade unions.

However, two points need to be stressed here: The first is that the party’s grassroots as well as the trade unions are not the electorate – the former two have always been much more left-wing than average voters who will decide the outcome of the next election.

The second point is that while is it good, and indeed admirable, to concentrate on how to reduce social inequality and poverty, focusing almost exclusively on this is certainly not enough to win an election.

­During his victory speech, Mr Corbyn spoke almost entirely about poverty and those at the bottom of the economic ladder. He did the same during his first Prime Minister’s Question Time last Wednesday – where he performed well and where he asked Prime Minister David Cameron questions sent to him by members of the public. However, voters need to know more than just where a party stands on reducing inequality.

The electorate wants to know how the Labour Party will manage the economy and achieve economic growth, how it will keep the deficit in check, how it will keep Britain safe, how it will keep inflation in check, how it will keep the UK attractive for foreign investment, how it will increase business confidence, and where it stands on taxation and welfare reform, among other issues.

Another major challenge for Mr Corbyn is to keep his parliamentary group united under his leadership. Only 20 out of 232 Labour MPs voted for him in the election and splits have already emerged in the party and the new shadow Cabinet over key policy areas. Tom Watson, for example, the new deputy Labour leader, said in an interview that he disagreed with Mr Corbyn’s position on Nato, the EU and the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Immediately after Mr Corbyn was elected leader, a number of members of the outgoing shadow Cabinet resigned, saying they would not serve under him. And many Labour MPs are furious at the appointment of John McDonnell, a far-left MP who once said he was in favour of taxing incomes over £100,000 at 60 per cent, as shadow chancellor.

Labour MPs will probably give Mr Corbyn a chance to see what type of support he will get from the public, but I believe that there will be a lot of backbench disgruntlement over his leadership which will divide the party. Voters tend not to tolerate massive divisions within a political party – just look at how the Conservatives were punished at the 1997 election when they were so divided over Europe.

The worst scenario for Labour will be a repetition of what happened in the 1980s when moderate centrist MPs split from the party to form the Social Democratic Party, but I believe that if there is the possibility of such a split, the party will prevent this by ousting Mr Corbyn.