I'm pro-Corbyn and pro-Trident. What's so strange about that?

Those who claim Corbyn has no choice but to stand by his principles and absolish the nuclear deterrent are misreading his role as a leader. Labour is no longer about the views of one man

Jeremy Corbyn's open style means that pro-Trident Labour voters are being listened to under his leadership. (PA)

Jeremy Corbyn’s many critics continue to misread his leadership mandate. More than 250,000 Labour supporters backed him as their first choice. These voters represent a far wider range of opinion than is often reported, including almost the full gamut of views on defence and foreign policy.

This should not be surprising, for any group of 250,000 will be diverse in its worldview. Where his voters agreed was on the need for Labour to stand for something, and to be unapologetic in its principles. They alsoo agreed that a movement in which a variety of voices may be listened to is a movement that is better placed to persuade the public.

Corbyn understands this too: he does not seek to lead the party on the failed model of his immediate predecessors, who allowed little room for outside input. This is not about the views of one man, but about how a confident political party develops and makes its case for election.

Trident is a prime example of this. Those who ask whether it is possible to support Corbyn and back Trident renewal need look no further than Unite, Britain’s biggest union and Labour’s biggest donor, who did both. Corbyn himself may be a convinced unilateralist, but there are plenty of impeccable Corbynite reasons to support Trident: it supports working-class and industrial jobs; it diverts defence spending away from weapons which might actually be used to kill and maim; it helps assert at least a degree of independence in British defence policy in the face of a President Trump or President Cruz.

There are, too, pragmatic arguments for renewing Trident. if we really seek a nuclear-free world, we need bargaining chips with which to persuade countries such as Russia to reduce and eventually abandon their arsenal. Unilateralism will not bring this world a step closer because it will do nothing to undermine the basis on which nuclear states operate. We will simply waste our bargaining chip and reduce our influence over those nations who are resolved to keep their weapons. Corbynite aims might sometimes best be achieved by non-Corbynite policies.

It would be absurd to deny that pro-Trident Corbyn voters are a minority, but they know that under the current leadership their voice will be heard and that political engagement has a purpose. Policy will always be made on reasoned principle and open discussion, rather than boneheaded calculation and executive diktat.

We got a glimpse of a different approach in the summer. Harriet Harman told MPs to abstain on the Welfare Bill, with its measures to increase child poverty and victimise the disabled. She imposed this position with no mandate and no consultation. The response of the 250,000 was clear: we, not you, are the party; we, not you, ultimately decide what and who it stands for - and if we don’t argue for those values voters will spot us for the frauds we are, and elect the Tories again.

If Labour supporters drew one lesson from 2015, it was that voters can spot a phony. Electability demands, first of all, that we understand and debate what we believe so that we can make a plausible case to the public. Under Corbyn, that debate is finally happening - on defence, as on other issues. Pro-Trident Labour supporters should welcome his approach.

Simon Richards is a pseudonym. The author is a public policy professional