Both times, it was for much the same reason. British politics occasionally seems to slip into a consensus, a status quo bias, that is wrong, and harmful, and needs to be overturned.
Thatcher overturned a political consensus that the mission of the British government was the orderly management of British decline and championed the market capitalism that was needed to make Britain prosperous. Now that market capitalism has deformed into neofeudalism, the political consensus that we need more austerity, fewer public services, lower taxes, no public housing and a collective surrender to the decisions of a handful of corporations needs to be overturned instead.
So I support Jeremy Corbyn for what I consider the obvious reasons.
Where we appear to be heading instead, almost by default, is dynastic neofeudalism and serfdom - the global economic surplus that could eradicate poverty and drag humanity out of squalor being squandered on making a bare handful of humans rich enough to buy gold-plated yachts (and by implication buy, de facto, all the other humans). We face a problem of allocation of resources, and the dominant market capitalist orthodoxy has become alarmingly bad at that.
So...I would like the Overton window to shift sharply left. I would like a political debate in this country that acknowledges the bankruptcy of austerity economics, the necessity of state spending to bring us out of depression, and the requirement of our collective largesse to be spent making everyone's lives tolerable, nay pleasant. Achieving that will necessarily require taking money off some people (and businesses) and giving it to some other people. Indeed. Corbyn seems willing to have that conversation, and to open up the political debate to that possibility. Therefore he has my support. For the first time in twenty years, I won't just be keeping the lizards out.
(Photo credit: Jason on Flickr)