Jeremy corbyn

It’s a bit mean to accuse the Tories of cynical expectations management, as Jeremy Corbyn has just done. Their panic was quite genuine. I’ve spoken to a great many Tories over the last few weeks, and none would have been so bold as to predict today’s results. Rallings & Thrasher had expected the Tories to lose 75 seats in aggregate, and so far they’re about flat. Given the awful time that Theresa May has had recently, it’s not a bad result. It was, as Tory chairman Brandon Lewis has said, a ‘reasonable’ night. But the fact that such a close result is described as ‘reasonable’ shows how far things have

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions saw the Maybot reactivated. Jeremy Corbyn decided to lead the session on the fallout from the Windrush row, widening out his questions to the flaws in the hostile environment policy on illegal immigration, and on who was to blame for these flaws being apparent but not fixed for so long. The exchanges very swiftly became a ding-dong between May and Corbyn as to whose fault the creation of a hostile environment policy actually was. Corbyn wanted to pin the policy on May, but also demanded that Amber Rudd resign for aiming to harden the policy. His questions were decent, but it was May herself who created

Theresa May should have been on the backfoot at PMQs today as a result of the Windrush scandal. But, somehow, Jeremy Corbyn still managed to ensure the Prime Minister got the upper hand. The Labour leader started off the session by going on the attack; unfortunately, for Corbyn, it backfired spectacularly: JC: Yesterday, we learned that in 2010, the Home Office destroyed landing cards for a generation of Commonwealth citizens, and so have told people: we can’t find you in our system. Did the Prime Minister – the then-home secretary – sign off that decision? TM: No, the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009, under a

The Foreign Secretary joined Andrew Marr to discuss the targeted missile strikes on chemical weapons facilities in Syria that took place during the early hours of Saturday morning. Although the US-led attacks were not intended to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad, and have reportedly seen no fatalities as a result, they have proved controversial, not least due to the likelihood of further strained relations with Russia. Johnson defended the government’s course of action, which was agreed at a meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday: AM: What is the mission, and have we really accomplished it? BJ: There’s one overwhelming reason why this was the right thing to do, and

The best that can be said for Jeremy Corbyn’s response to air strikes against the Assad regime is that he is at least consistent. Why did he assert that the smart cuff meted out last night risked ‘escalating further… an already devastating conflict’? Because in Corbyn’s worldview, it is the felling of chemical weapons factories, not the extermination of children with the chemical weapons those factories produce, that escalates conflict. Why did he echo Syrian state media in questioning the legality of military action? Because Corbyn is a cynic who calculates that feigning concern for the global rules-based order — something he believes in only intermittently — is useful for stalling, deflection and water-muddying.

There are many figures in the Labour party who wish that Jeremy Corbyn would stay schtum on foreign policy. Whether it’s his anti-West views, warm feeling towards his ‘friends’ Hamas or complicated relationship with Russia, when the Labour leader turns to international affairs, many of his MPs look on in despair. But up until now Mr S had thought that the shadow cabinet were at least on his side. Perhaps not. In an interview with the House magazine, Kate Osamor – the shadow  international development secretary – suggests Corbyn should stop commenting on foreign policy and ‘just let his spokesperson speak’. Referring to Corbyn’s comments this week on the situation

What is it, psychologically, that makes it so hard for Jeremy Corbyn to recognise that some of his supporters are horrible people with horrible views (in this case, raving anti-Semites)? I remember asking myself the same question, in the early 1980s, about Tony Benn. I used to attend Labour party conferences and their numerous left-wing fringe meetings (often addressed by Benn’s no. 1 fan, J. Corbyn). Benn was always there, always courteous, genially smoking his pipe. Often, however, his supporters would say extremist things, and sometimes they would yell foul abuse — either at party and trade union moderates or at the media. Never once was Benn vile himself, but never once