THERE is a tendency to see Jeremy Corbyn as an accidental party leader, the beneficiary of a change in public mood that caught his opponents wrong-footed and left him wielding power he did not expected as a serial rebel on Labour’s backbenches.

Now, of course, he is citing his mandate and talking of discipline, but already there is an evident schism over Trident. He is opposed to renewal and claims that, by taking three times the number of votes of his nearest challenger, he has the right to see that through. But his shadow defence secretary backs Trident replacement and, after conference declined to debate it, that remains Labour policy. It is as clear as mud.

However, Mr Corbyn made a decent fist of his first conference speech as leader. He was articulate, self-deprecating, witty and warm in his defence of a more gentle, compassionate Britain. While the delegates lapped up what was a speech largely based on his leadership pitch, his parliamentary colleagues were less certain, some even grim-faced, as they wondered when their new boss would be able to put some policy flesh on the bones of his aspiration for a fairer society.

For some, this studied vagueness about detail is part of the Corbyn charm, with his talk of a more gentle, less confrontational politics. But political opponents love a policy vacuum and the Tories charged into this, with Michael Gove citing the speech as a confirmation that Labour were “a threat to our national security, our economic security and to the security of every family in Britain”.

This will come across to many as cheap jibes from hard-nosed Tories, especially given that we are not a step closer to abolition of Trident and that Mr Corbyn explicitly accepted the Conservative insistence that the national debt had to be dealt with.

The lack of detail in the speech allowed his many supporters in the trade union movement to wax lyrical about his vision of a kinder, more caring society, of integrity and of a warmth that could bring back to the Labour fold those who had become disillusioned and disconnected.

His vanquished opponent Andy Burnham sounded more doubtful, saying: “We’ll see.” But he did concede that people wanted authenticity over spin and soundbite and might warm to someone who spoke from the heart.

Predictably, the business community was lukewarm when not downright critical, with the Institute of Directors observing that there was “not much space for business” in the speech. Even here, though, there was a positive acknowledgement that improving infrastructure, stimulating manufacturing and building houses were all worthy aims.

Mr Corby covered much worthy ground somewhat thinly – human rights in Saudi Arabia, mental health, child tax credits, steel jobs, re-nationalising railways – but his very brief passage on Scotland tokenistic or an afterthought. His inaccurate comments at the weekend about rail and ferries north of the Border did not mark a good start and John McDonnell’s plea for Labour voters in Scotland to “come home” to their party will fall on deaf ears without evidence of a real strategy rather than a simple reliance on attacking the record of an SNP Government that remains popular. Mr Corbyn is attempting to change the style and tone of UK politics but there is much for his shadow cabinet to debate – and fall out over. Can he succeed? As Mr Burnham put it, we’ll see.