“When the revolution comes some of us will probably catch it on TV, with chicken hanging from our mouths. You’ll know it’s revolution cause there won't be no commercials.”

So hip-hopped The Last Poets in 1970, waiting for the day, soon to come, when writers would put down their pens and instead take up pistols in the struggle for civil rights that would inevitably sweep the Americas. Or so it seemed to them.

Jeremy Corbyn was there at the time, right in the thick of it, backpacking through Latin America, soaking up revolutionary fervour on every street.

He took to the streets with students in São Paulo protesting against Brazilian military dictatorship. He marched in Chile alongside the Popular Unity Party that swept to power under the very same Salvador Allende who would, three years later, shoot himself in the mouth with an AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro, just as a CIA-supported military coup d’etat led by General Pinochet closed in on the presidential palace.

If it’s easy to mock politicians, it’s only easy because they make it so.

Heady days. Politics for Jeremy Corbyn started out as a living fire-breathing revolution. It’s only the passage of time that has, nearly 50 years later, reduced Comrade Corbyn to arguing the toss with Phillip Schofield on whether or not to interrupt the public enjoyment of I’m A Celebrity with a live TV debate on Brexit.

If it’s easy to mock politicians, it’s only easy because they make it so.

At least Corbyn’s got the excuse of old age, approaching, as he is, 70. But what would those ghostly revolutionaries of Santiago and São Paulo think of today’s Corbynistas, waging their social media war against the establishment? The price of protest seems a little cheaper these days, and more profitable. You can get decent money writing columns about this stuff, you know.

Corbyn has never cared much for Brexit; never saw it as core to his own revolutionary manifesto. It’s always been something of a distraction.

[June 2016] was the last moment of concise, unambiguous policy on Brexit Corbyn had to offer.

There’s a whole Wikipedia entry devoted to the political positions of Jeremy Corbyn. The European section is a veritable Kama Sutra of passionate contempt for the EU.

In 1975, he argues against membership of the EEC. In 1993, he argues against the Maastricht Treaty. In 1996, he rails against power-grabbing by unelected EU bureaucrats. In 2008, he opposes the Treaty Of Lisbon. And in 2011, he backs calls for a referendum of withdrawing altogether. You get the picture? The guy is not a fan.

In July 2015, he makes his last great rallying call against the “brutality” of the European Union, in its attitude towards the economic catastrophe Greece. And then something changes.

What was it? Oh, yeah: that September he gets made leader of the Labour Party. Suddenly, Corbyn’s position on the European Union becomes less consistent and principles fly akimbo.

Why take the stage at all, when to do so is to expose yourself to the same lack of answers your opponent has?

As leader he quickly announces Labour will campaign to stay in the EU, no matter what David Cameron manages to renegotiate in Brussels to seal a Remain victory. In June 2016, days before the referendum, he says there is an “overwhelming” argument to stay in the EU. Then, just hours after the Leave vote, he does a one-eighty and says we should trigger Article 50 immediately and get the heck out as soon as we can.

That was the last moment of concise, unambiguous policy on Brexit Corbyn had to offer. Since that day he has been hopelessly unconvincing, and occasionally visibly unsure, about what Labour’s position on Brexit actually is.

It’s fair enough, I suppose. Why interrupt Theresa May when she’s in such fine flow herself in destroying the credibility of the Conservatives? Why draw red lines when to do so would alienate huge numbers of your own voters? Why take the stage at all, when to do so is to expose yourself to the same lack of answers your opponent has?

Which makes his stated willingness to go head-to-head with Theresa May in a televised debate something of a mystery. What’s the upside for him?

Perhaps he believes he will destroy her in debate and convince the nation – which, according to polls, is still deeply dubious – that he is PM material. But even factoring in both his moderate rhetorical ability and her paranormal uselessness for thinking on her feet, there’s no evidence that he will do that.

[Corbyn] found politics so simple, so black and white, so pure of principle. Right up until the moment there was a danger he’d actually get the chance to do something about it.

At PMQs each week it’s a toss-up who will be left looking the least woeful of the two. They are both relatively unconvincing performers and couldn’t hold a candle to a Thatcher, a Kinnock, a Hague or a Blair.

And, in her favour, at least May has got an actual plan to sell, derided as it is, whereas Corbyn has nothing other than six tests nobody can remember and a pitch to “please just step aside and let me have a go”, which, as a manifesto, lacks substance. Vagueness is death on TV. Corbyn has nothing other than vagueness, unless he was to pull off a genuine coup de théâtre and announce live on TV that Labour were throwing the question back to a second referendum. I doubt that’s his plan.

My theory? Corbyn has always been uncomfortable on the topic of Brexit but recognises that it will somehow define his opportunity to govern. The problem for him, visibly etched on his forehead as it contracts with frustration whenever he is challenged on it, is he just can’t work out how.

My suspicion is that, whether they eventually resolve which channel it should be on or not, he doesn’t want to do it all. All this baloney about interrupting I’m A Celebrity is just another wriggle from the man who once found politics so simple, so black and white, so pure of principle. Right up until the moment there was a danger he’d actually get the chance to do something about it.

At a dinner last week, Tony Blair - and yes, I’ve saved this for the bottom of the article, knowing full well I’d have lost 90% of you if I’d mentioned Toxic Tone at the top - talked candidly about the realpolitik of governing.

“There are conservatives on both sides of the political spectrum. The far-left that has hijacked the Labour Party are as conservative as the right wing of the Conservative party. Their vision is based on a fantasy, usually grounded in some historical context, that is simply undeliverable. They think passing a resolution at conference is the same as governing.”

The radical ones, Blair suggested, were the ones who could make actual progress; the pragmatists, not the dogmatists.

Britain’s political paralysis today is the result of the overbearing influence of dogma on both sides of the debate. Neither side has the pragmatism to be honest with the country, or even themselves.

If the TV debate happens, and I suspect both Corbyn and May will be delighted if they don’t, it will expose the uncomfortable truth that leadership at its worst produces muddle and fudge. The great leaders are the ones with the courage to speak honestly and directly to the country they represent. Neither Jeremy Corbyn, nor Theresa May, have demonstrated any willingness to do that in this, the greatest issue of our lifetimes.

So perhaps the revolution won’t be televised after all. Maybe we’ll have to settle for watching Harry Redknapp get crowned king of the jungle instead. At least we’ll all be clear about who won what. Pass the chicken.

Now read:

We don’t need another vote on Brexit. We need two

The only people saying Brexit won’t affect business are people who don’t own one

Theresa May made all of Europe her enemy in Brussels