Rosa Prince is the author of “Theresa May, the Enigmatic Prime Minister” (Biteback Publishing, 2017) and “Comrade Corbyn” (Biteback Publishing, 2016).

LONDON — The Glastonbury cries of “Oh Jer-e-my Coooor-byn” ring a little hollow now.

Two and a half years ago, the Labour leader emerged from his party’s defeat at a general election with the aura of a winner. To his followers, he was an almost Messianic figure who had confounded the pollsters by denying Theresa May the majority she assumed was hers.

His name was chanted to the tune of the White Stripes not only at the famous music festival but on football terraces and among groups of gleeful young friends, amused that their Labour vote had delivered a two-fingered salute to the Tory establishment.

This time around, there is no denying that Labour’s failure is just that — its worst result since 1935. The party has been all but wiped out in the northern towns and villages where voting Labour is less a political choice than a sign of tribal loyalty.

From his post-election speech, it is obvious how much thinking had gone into managing the transition to the next leader in a way that ensures Corbynism outlasts Corbyn.

It is nothing less than a crushing personal rejection of Corbyn. It should, logically, also be a crushing defeat for everything he stood for, forcing the party to turn a new leaf.

But that looks increasingly unlikely to happen.

In the hours after the first exit poll gave a shock indication of the scale of the devastation to come, Labour HQ did its best to spin the line that this loss could be laid at the door of Brexit, that the party’s brand of socialism would be embraced by voters as soon as the small matter of Europe was parked and normal service resumed.

Thus, according to the logic espoused by Corbyn loyalists such as Richard Burgon and Diane Abbott, at the next election in five years’ time — when, presumably, Brexit will be the stuff of history — the same offering can be reheated and dished up again.

Speaking after securing his seat in Islington North, Corbyn himself was bullish, insisting he took pride in Labour’s manifesto and refusing to apologize or take personal responsibility for his party’s loss.

And while he conceded that he would not fight another election, he insisted he would remain in post long enough to oversee the transition to the next leader.

"I will discuss with our party to ensure there is a process now of reflection on this result and on the policies that the party will take going forward,” he said. "And I will lead the party during that period to ensure that discussion takes place and we move on into the future."

At the exact moment he was speaking, Labour MP Phil Wilson was losing Sedgefield to the Tories. That’s Sedgefield, the seat in the Durham coal fields held by Tony Blair for 22 years with majorities never smaller than 8,000.

Wilson was clear that he did not consider Brexit responsible for his defeat, tweeting: “For @UKLabour leadership to blame Brexit for the result is mendacious nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was a bigger problem. To say otherwise is delusional. The Party’s leadership went down like a lead balloon on the doorstep. Labour’s leadership needs to take responsibility.”

Another MP to lose his seat, Gareth Snell in Stoke-on-Trent Central, agreed, saying the result was “catastrophic” for the area, and accusing Corbyn and the shadow cabinet of abandoning areas like his in favor of triangulation over Brexit.

There was real emotion in his voice as he spoke of the indignities he feared would now be inflicted on his former constituents, people already suffering the most from the cuts of the Tory austerity years.

What, he must have wondered, were Corbyn and his allies thinking when they expended so much political energy engaging in internecine battles over anti-Semitism, constructed their ridiculous Brexit compromise, plotted to oust deputy leader Tom Watson, or attempted to deselect MPs from the center and right of the party, when they should have been focusing on taking the fight to the Conservatives in places like Stoke?

The answer to that question is now clear. Those apparent follies were actually key stages in Corbyn’s agenda of capturing the party — not for himself but for a generation.

It is often said of the outgoing leader that he was more interested in winning Labour than he was in winning the country. Never has this been clearer than in the manner of his departure.

From his post-election speech, it is obvious how much thinking had gone into managing the transition to the next leader in a way that ensures Corbynism outlasts Corbyn.

The war Corbyn and those around him staged within and against his party will not come to end with his defeat at the hands of the U.K. electorate.

Where most leaders would seek to resign with dignity immediately after such a devastating loss — think David Cameron after the 2016 European referendum defeat — Corbyn wants to stay in place for as long as possible, to give a candidate from his far-left cabal time to grow in stature. So far, Corbyn has only promised he would stand down "early" in the new year, with the contest to replace him likely to last at least three months.

The task of securing a replacement in his own mold has been made harder by the defeat of Laura Pidcock, his preferred successor, who did not survive the blue tide in her seat of North West Durham. But in almost every other way, Corbyn’s desire to maintain Corbynism appears secure.

He has seen off Watson, his Brownite deputy for most of his reign, and, crucially, retains control of the ruling National Executive Committee that will run the contest to replace him.

That means he will not be hurried to lay out a timetable for his departure. And there will be no changes to the rules that give the party’s mass membership power over the leadership. These are the same members, largely, who put Corbyn where he is in 2015 and kept him there a year later when his MPs, disgusted at his failure to campaign fulsomely for Remain ahead of the Brexit referendum, attempted to rid themselves of him.

This group is unlikely to vote for Keir Starmer or Emily Thornberry or Jess Phillips or any of the candidates on whose centrist shoulders hopes now rest. It is also unclear, given their appeasement of him over the last few years, whether any of these potential candidates even possess the gumption to challenge Corbyn and trigger the early contest that would likely give them a greater chance of winning.

If you were a Labour moderate uneasy at the leadership’s attitude to anti-Semitism and appalled at the return to the party of Socialist Workers and Militant, if you had been jeered at in Constituency Labour Party meetings for raising objections and seen the MP you respect deselected or thrown out by voters, would you hang around long enough to take part in a leadership election in several months' time?

The war Corbyn and those around him staged within and against his party will not come to end with his defeat at the hands of the U.K. electorate.

Instead, it has only just begun.