Amazing don't you think, that the Queen became Britain's longest serving monarch.

She has the advantage, of course, of not having to seek re-election, but in terms of a job for life and a dedication to it, you can't fault her.

I'm a very big fan of the British monarchy - it's an excellent example of its type.

It's no wonder the Americans fall over themselves for Her Majesty and William and Kate - they know a good thing when they see one.


The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. I am not against becoming a republic, per se, but the massive downside to such a move would be finding a president, and not just one, but many.

In a population of 4.5 million, finding exemplary talent every four or five years would be not just an uphill battle but nigh on impossible.

We comforted ourselves when Sir Ed was alive because he was a shoo-in for the first spot, but since his passing we're immediately on to Richie McCaw, who falls into the classic category of a decent bloke with excellent name recognition who's offered the job by default because we like him.

The process needs to be slightly more robust than that. The beauty of the monarchy is that the decision is already sorted.

Charles is next, eclectic but safe enough, and the really good news is William and George.

George might be a reprobate - it's early days - but William is unquestionably the goods. If you do the numbers - and I'm being slightly indelicate here - the Queen has perhaps 10 years left, which would make Charles 76-ish. He's good for what - 20 years?

What's the situation here? We're happy for the Chinese to pay for tourist infrastructure but not buy a meat factory or a house? The racism has got to stop.

That would put William in his mid-60s, so that's another 30-plus years - well over half a century of stability and consistency taken care of.

The really important thing here is that most of us seem to like them. The Diana years were a bit ropey, but when viewed over the Queen's reign you can't possibly argue that the bad has outweighed the good. Even if you were fervent in your anti-monarchist views you'd struggle to say that the Queen hasn't been outstanding in her role.

Which ties in - sort of - to another thing that's happening in Britain this week. That's Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy is about to become the new Labour leader in what really has been the most astonishing political race I can remember.

He is not just going to win but win in a landslide.

And in Jeremy's victory will be one of politics' great debating points - do you sell what you believe or do you sell what the people want?

I ask this because Jeremy will never be Prime Minister; he will never win an election.

Jeremy - if you haven't followed proceedings - is about as far-left of the political spectrum as you can get.

Jeremy wants to print money, he wants trades people to retire early, he wants to increase taxes, he can't think of a reason to deploy the military - not that he'll have one because the cutbacks will be historic in their size - and he wants to re-nationalise industry.

He is a stark raving loony.

Everyone knows politics in western democracies is won in the centre. You can be a little centre-right or a little centre-left, but the key is the centre.

History shows us some of its better practitioners. John Key and Helen Clark here. Bob Hawke and John Howard in Australia.

David Cameron and Tony Blair in Britain.

Each country with examples from either side of the centre, but strong on the centre nevertheless.

Which is the great irony of the British race. Cameron won not just an election that no poll showed he could, but destroyed the Labour Party in the process. That is why Jeremy is going to win the leadership.

So decimated is the Labour Party that the only people left standing are the hard-line unionists who think Jeremy is manna from heaven.

Of course, the previous leader, Ed Miliband, was roundly criticised before he quit for dragging the party too far to the left.

Good, prosperous, forward-looking western democracies operate best when people are happy, in work, with good schools and low taxes and a sense of overall satisfaction.

David Cameron delivered that in the same way that Key is delivering it here.

There is a very good reason why in the most recent poll National, after seven years in power, still has an extraordinary 50 per cent support.

But back to Jeremy. Given he will be elected by the hardline of the party, he will have trouble finding enough MPs to form a shadow cabinet. There has been endless speculation about a revolt, but what time will quite simply show is the polls will tank, presumably badly enough for them to panic about their choice before they get to the next election ... remembering that's four and a half years away.

If not, and he leads them to the polls - quite possibly against Boris Johnson - then Labour will be open to the full force of the reality of 21st century politics. The party will not only be wiped out in Scotland, where they have one seat left, but in the mainland as well.

All because the Jeremy Corbyns of this world refuse to see reality, refuse to deliver on the fundamental premise that what the people want, the people by and large should get.

You can't bludgeon people into liking you, you can't trick them, you can't lie to them. We're too aware, too well read.

Which is why what's happening to Labour in Britain defies belief.

If the basic rule of politics is to be in government, why don't you formulate ideas and policy that will get you there?

Corbyn hasn't got a trick or policy in his satchel that will get him anywhere close.

His beliefs are old and exposed.

He is, of course, on a personal level, entitled to believe anything he wants - but does anyone else believe it? It is the dilemma of political parties who spend their life in opposition all over the world.

Is what you're delivering what you want or what the people want? And if it's not the latter, you're wasting your time.

Debate on this article is now closed.