What’s powering the Left’s sudden rise?

You think I’m exaggerating? Consider the man who, according to the polls, is set to be the next leader of Britain’s Labor Party.

Jeremy Corbyn was a keen supporter of Castro’s Cuba and Chavez’s Venezuela. He refers to Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” and backed the IRA throughout its terrorist campaign. He regularly quotes Karl Marx, believes that capitalism is doomed and, I’m pretty sure, privately regrets the outcome of the Cold War.

Corbyn is a kind of karaoke communist — you know what he’s going to say before he says it.

Rich people? Tax the bastards.

Railways? Nationalise ’em.

Mining coal? Good.

Burning coal? Bad.

Islamic State? “Some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling.” Yup, that’s a genuine quote from an interview on Vladimir Putin’s favorite satellite channel, Russia Today.

How can such a man be three weeks away from becoming Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition? Believe me, it’s not charisma. He shuffles about like a scruffy geography teacher, muttering hesitantly from the depths of an unkempt beard. True, he lives frugally: I’ve only ever seen him arrive at meetings by bike or by bus. And in a world full of image-conscious politicians, no one can doubt his sincerity.

But sincerity alone isn’t what’s impelling the plodding old boob to victory.

You’ll hear some people claim that he is a beneficiary of the new primary system introduced by Labor. Instead of dividing the votes between trade unions, MPs and party members, as it used to, the party has allowed anyone who pays £3 (around $5) to vote. A number of fringe Leftists have taken advantage of the new system to join and support their champion. But, though the polls do indeed show that Jeremy Corbyn is ahead among these new £3 affiliates, they also show that he’s ahead among the old members as well.

No, the rise of Corbyn should be seen as part of the same phenomenon that has seen Syriza become the dominant party of Greece, Podemos surge in Spain, the SNP win power in Scotland and even — in a diluted form — old Bernie enjoy his moment in the United States. What we’re witnessing, I’m afraid, is a delayed response to the bank bailouts.

When governments across the Western world decided to rescue wealthy bankers and bondholders from the consequences of their own mistakes, they undermined the legitimacy of capitalism. Free markets had enjoyed a broad consensus since the fall of the Berlin Wall because they were seen as both efficient and meritocratic. Sure, some people started with more advantages than others, but anyone who worked hard enough could reasonably hope to prosper.

The far Left always argued that it was all a crock, a racket in which the rich rigged the rules in their own favor. When the bailouts were decreed despite huge public opposition, that view seemed to have been validated. Wealthy people got to keep the profits when things went well, but to help themselves to subsidies when they didn’t. Quantitative Easing saw a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The entire Western system of government turned out to be a lot more oligarchic than most of us had imagined.

A small number of people understood that the bailouts were an affront to free markets. Such people tended to be concentrated in the United States, and sympathized with Tea Party. But many more believed that the veil had been torn away, revealing a scam. Such people were found all over the world, and sympathized with the Occupy Movement. Unlike the Tea Partiers, they were able to find political parties to put their ideas into action.

Who is responsible for the rise of Corbyn and Sanders and the rest? Every legislator who voted to give his constituents’ money to failed financial institutions. You reap what you sow.

Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.