Jeremy Corbyn’s first full day as Labour leader was greeted with a crop of front page headlines predicting chaos, splits and general mayhem. Take a look at these:

“Unions threaten chaos after Corbyn win” (Daily Telegraph); “Corbyn union pals pledge strike chaos” (Daily Mail); “Labour divide deepens as Umunna quits over Corbyn stance on Europe” (The Guardian); “Now Chuka Umunna joins anti-Corbyn exodus” (The Independent); “Labour divisions widen as Corbyn takes charge” (The Times); “Corbyn: Abolish the army” (The Sun); “Why Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to Britain” (Daily Express) and “Back Corbyn... or quit Labour” (Metro).

By contrast, the Daily Mirror carried only a picture with a cross reference to an inside piece written by Corbyn (“Jezza writes for the Daily Mirror”). And the Glasgow-based Daily Record, the only mainstream paper to back Corbyn, ran a teaser to what it billed as “his first interview as Labour leader.”

Clearly, Trinity Mirror’s Labour-supporting titles are going to give Corbyn a synpathetic hearing - at least to begin with.

The Morning Star, which had also backed Corbyn’s leadership bid, didn’t mention his victory on Monday’s front page. But it had done that, and how, the previous day by publishing its first-ever Sunday issue.

If the headlines were largely predictable, then the leading articles - and bylined commentaries - were wholly in line with what readers would have expected.

The Telegraph, arguing that Corbyn is “a man of the party, not the people”, derided the notion of “some starry-eyed commentators” that packed meeting halls are “proof of a unique ability to reach out beyond the political realm and connect with previously indifferent voters.”

Instead, said the paper, it proves only that “the hard left of the Labour movement is still good at organising ‘spontaneous’ demonstrations” and that “people who are interested in leftwing politics will go to meetings about left-wing politics.” It continued:

“Mr Corbyn may well set pulses racing in his north London constituency, on Twitter and in the editorial conferences of the BBC and the Guardian. But that is not, never has been and never will be the same thing as inspiring the British electorate as a whole... If Mr Corbyn is pinning Labour’s hopes on a silent majority, he will be bitterly disappointed. For there is indeed a silent majority in Britain, and it is made up of people who breathed a sigh of contented relief when Mr Cameron returned to Downing Street for a second term in May.”

The Times contended that there is no sign that Corbyn is suitable or capable of holding the government to account. “In choosing him as its leader the Labour party has therefore pleased itself but done the country a disservice.” It went on:

“The job of leader of the opposition is a difficult one. It involves leading roles in some of the toughest occasions in the parliamentary calendar... Mr Corbyn has so far managed a long political career with no notable success. He... is a serial protester, a man happier saying what is wrong than worrying over the troublesome detail of how to put it right. He is a man who has never had to perform at high-profile moments in parliament, never had to write a big speech for a party conference, never had to take the lead in set-piece interviews.”

The Times also predicted ahead of appointments to the shadow cabinet that it would look like “a ragbag of people not quite up to the job, not quite knowing what they are doing.”

The Mail’s editorial, “Corbyn is a great leap backwards for Labour”, said he “embodies a form of extreme socialism so old that people seem to have forgotten how dangerous it can be... the hard-left politics of envy and social division - involving punitive taxation of the middle classes, ruinous public spending, reckless borrowing, and kow-towing to trade union power.”

The paper’s major concern was Corbyn’s support for the unions: “knowing they have Labour in the palm of their hand” they “are spoiling for a fight with the government.”

But it warned Cameron’s Tories not to be “too triumphalist” in the face of Corbyn’s victory. It “has demonstrated how thoroughly disillusioned people - especially the young - have become with Britain’s complacent and self-serving political class, across all major parties.”



So it called on the government to prove it is working in the interests of the whole country and concluded:

“The Tories may have at least 10 more years of majority government. They can - and must - use that time to build a fairer, freer, more affluent society.”

A possible resurgance of union activity also prompted the Express to claim that under the leadership of “Comrade Corbyn... hardline union barons who put him there are determined to take the country back to 1926 with a general strike.”

The Conservatives are “right to take on these dinosaurs... workers should have the right to strike - unless they provide vital public services - but for too long that right has been abused by union bosses more keen on striking a blow for their Marxist doctrines than looking after their members’ interests.”



The Sun returned to the subject of Corbyn’s stance on the Middle East. His “anti-Semitic allies”, it said, “include the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists he welcomed as ‘friends’.”

Corbyn’s response - by giving Jews and other minorities their own shadow minister “illustrates the mindset of the hard-left cult that has taken control of Labour.” It continued:

“To the Corbynites, society is chopped up into a series of different labels — Jews, Muslims, black people, Hindus, gay people and every other minority — who should all have separate policies and separate treatment. Like the rest of Corbyn’s ideas, it’s a rerun of the failed 1980s loony left experiments that most people thought were long since dead and buried.”

The Independent opened its editorial by referring to “the stubborn consistency” of Corbyn’s “hard-left position over the past 30 years” which “has left him with a garage-load of old ideas.”

But the paper, in noting the Labour leader’s “monstering by the right-wing media” and “questionable” electability, argued that “his landslide victory should be greeted warmly even by those beyond the ranks of his true believers... because the voice of the voiceless has now made itself heard.”

It viewed Tony Blair’s New Labour as “a small, fiercely motivated, power-hungry clique within the party” that, based on its triumphs in 1997 and 2001, advanced “the neo-Thatcherite message that ‘there is no alternative’”.

Today, said the Indy, “that claim appears hubristic, and arguably more controversial than much of what Mr Corbyn proposes.” By contrast Corbyn, has already “changed British politics” by winning over the support of a large number of idealistic young people “as well as those Labour oldsters with a nostalgic hankering for the old certainties.”

But, it agreed, “he will not persuade Middle England, and that’s not because Middle England is greedy and selfish. It’s because the socialism that Mr Corbyn champions has failed to live up to its billing everywhere it has been tried.”

The Guardian believed Corbyn’s win to be “the most astonishing leadership victory in any major British political party in modern times”, amounting to “a grassroots revolt against politics-as-usual.”

It urged people to accept the result “with genuine humility” and warned “disappointed Labour moderates” not to despose Corbyn on the grounds that it is “an offence to democracy” and “stupid.” It argued:

“The last thing that Labour needs is a civil war with any resemblance to the terrible internal battles of the late 1970s and early 80s.”

Accepting that “a lot could go wrong”, the paper pointed to coming political choices “on defining issues such as taxation, Britain’s position in the European Union, the future of the United Kingdom, defence and our membership of Nato, and the practical challenges of migration.”

Corbyn will be profoundly tested, it said, but thought he should “be judged by what he says and does on those and other issues of similar size.”

And the Mirror? It called for unity, arguing that “grumbling Labour MPs must heed that fundamental truth after Jeremy Corbyn’s spectacular victory.”

Corbyn “deserves an opportunity to take it his way after two general election defeats.” In turn he must “acknowledge the party is a broad church and embrace Labour critics as well as friends.” It said: