There is one thing Corbynism and Blairism share in common: toxic brands toxifying ideas. And ideas that may not only be good, but essential.

In clinging -not even clinging, but remaining devoted to- toxic brands, ideas that may be rational, and otherwise potentially electorally powerful, get dragged down, the legacy of their brand tainting the legacy of their ideas and threatening to destroy entire institutions.

When Labour entered office in 1997, a deep lack of investment in public services caused an anger that bought in a consensus in favour of public spending. Labour increased public spending -on our schools and NHS- and the Tories followed suit in promising to match Labour.

And then that consensus broke, because bankers gambled. Or, in fact, because the Tories changed history, and Labour caused the global crisis.

The 2015 election was played among an electorate that by a majority believed a single national government had brought down the entire global financial system. Labour failed that badly at brand management.

What was once normal -public spending- became the root of all ills. Now austerity is normal. Now the bedroom tax is normal. Now blaming welfare claimants and immigrants. Normal.

Politics is a game of normalisation. Normalisation being a process in which ideas become common sense. Like the NHS. But that normalisation of ideas and the creation of consensus is determined by the faces and the subsequent brand associated with them. Blair and Brown’s faces, and New Labour, became toxic — not just among the public, but among their Labour successors who were unwilling to defend public spending, both among the Labour Left and Right.

One may blame the New Labour successors for not putting in enough effort to defend their record. Paradoxically, in the 2015 race, it seemed only Corbyn was committed to defending the public spending record from the Tories’ attacks on it and their illogical austerity plan, albeit in a way that never explicitly defending the government itself. That’s not true, actually — Yvette tried, but it fell on deaf ears. When Andy Burnham suggested we apologise for something that was not our fault, it was defied by Yvette who defended New Labour and defied by Corbyn who hated New Labour.

Regardless, it is clear that New Labour failed to preserve an institutional legacy in a lot of ways. Some things remain changed for the better. But some things changed only temporarily, and then were successfully destroyed by the Coalition. Because Blair caused the crisis. Brown sold the gold. The Millennium Dome bankrupted us.

Economic institutions lie in ruins. Because a brand failed.

The economic institutions that Corbyn wants to build cannot be built by Corbyn. Built New Labour institutions -in an era of accepted deregulation and privatisation but a nonetheless expanding welfare state with EMA and tax credits and Sure Start- collapsed because the Tories de-normalised their ideas. The Tories, and in many ways the Leaders’ Office’s own incompetence, have destroyed Corbyn’s ideas pre-emptively. There are many ideas that would never fly, mind -Corbynism is tainted by bad and outdated ideas, particularly on foreign policy, before the problem of Corbyn himself even needs mentioning. But first and foremost the Tories need only point to Corbyn as simply articulating them for them to be made invalid.

New Labour was, in the end, a collective brand failure. It caught fire and it was difficult to stop the spread. Corbyn’s deep unpopularity is more simple. Arguably, depending on who you speak to, with a variety of causes to blame, but with a a more singular focus of toxicity. The leader himself, and perhaps his inner circle. Corbyn is so deeply unpopular among all ages and all classes that anything he champions will be destroyed by association. It’s a fact that many of his previous supporters agree with. Owen Jones, George Monbiot, Simon Fletcher. It’s certain many of his current supporters privately believe so to. Maybe even Corbyn himself. Anything he believes in, those worth defending on the welfare state in particular, will not survive association with him. This makes it in many ways easier to save them, if only he bows out. If he does so before electoral disaster, as Owen Jones argues, there may be a foundation for something progressive to replace him. But only before then.

Of course, we can blame much for this. The media, the PLP, an establishment. It is harder for the Left to push through a process of normalisation precisely because ours is a mission of changing consensus while the Tories -bar, perhaps, Thatcherism- defend the existing one.

The reason Thatcherism as a consensus-changer was exceptional was because it was borne from a period of economic crisis under an opponent — just as Cameron’s version of Thatcherism emerged too. And the Right are better than us at pinning entire global crises on a British political party. So much so that even its, erm, intellects have begun to believe it. We are too weak now to do the same with a Brexit that may very well destroy our economy. And that would be their fault.

This messaging, these incredibly successful narratives, cannot be overturned, changed or constructed unless our own narrators are equally matched combatants. Ed Miliband couldn’t do it. Jeremy Corbyn certainly can’t. Tony Blair and associates, whenever opening their mouth on the last government, serve to make it worse. We cannot build a new consensus, or merely defend our ideas, until we have a good brand with good ambassadors — or even just ones that aren’t so deeply toxic as those we have now.

The effect of clinging to Corbyn as a brand is urgent and consequential. It continues to cause a great degradation of ideas that has great social implication. Which is a tragedy, because shared ideas on economic justice are worth preserving — essential, actually. Because New Labour and Corbyn alike have failed to defend economically just ideas, especially around the welfare state, the government can now slash housing benefit. People will go homeless. And the likelihood is that the government will benefit electorally. And that’s a horrifying thought to process. And it’s all of our faults. But it is something that only Corbyn and his supporters can now reverse and halt.

As Ian Warren’s polling, in the shadow of Copeland, once again opens up the debate on the future of the current Labour Leadership -with it being clear Corbyn would win another leadership election- it turns to the Left to reflect on whether a leader and his brand is worth the collapse of ideas held dear. More importantly, it turns to Corbyn himself. To save his own ideas, those we can all champion on economic justice, and pass them to someone else.