Jeremy Corbyn is a 'disaster', says Stephen Hawking

Jeremy Corbyn 'more popular than ever' with Labour grass-roots

24 November

Labour MPs who are contemptuous of Jeremy Corbyn and want him replaced – especially after his performance on defence yesterday – have received bad news this morning. An exclusive YouGov poll for The Times shows that Corbyn has become increasingly popular among Labour grass-roots supporters.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The "shoot-to-kill" controversy, the disagreement over Syria, the muddle over Trident – none of them have dented his popularity. Indeed, while he was elected in September with a 59 per cent share of the vote, YouGov now says 66 per cent of Labour members believe he is "doing well".

Mike Smithson at Political Betting says: "It's hard to see how at this stage Corbyn can be ousted." The Times adds: "Any coup attempt would lead to Mr Corbyn or a fellow left-winger being returned to office by members and supporters."

The YouGov findings

YouGov polled all those who could have voted in the leadership contest this summer, including full party members, registered supporters who paid £3 for the right to help choose the next leader, and trade unionists.

Two-thirds of that total electorate approve of Corbyn's performance. This rises to 86 per cent among those who actually voted for him.

One reason for his rise in popularity is that people who voted for his rivals have begun to come round to Corbyn, says The Times. He has "impressed" 49 per cent of Andy Burnham's supporters and 29 per cent of Yvette Cooper's.

Corbyn on defence

A wide spectrum of columnists - from The Guardian to The Spectator – have criticised Corbyn's response to David Cameron's statement to parliament on the strategic defence review.

How did Corbyn react to Cameron's plans to acquire new fighter jets and drones and create 'strike brigades' ready to respond to terrorist attacks? By going off topic entirely, says John Crace in The Guardian, and asking the PM whether he could guarantee there would be no further cuts to the police service.

Why couldn't Corbyn have done the opposition leader-ly thing, asks Crace. "Get up, say something bland about the armed forces all being heroes who had been let down by the government's incompetence, sit down sharpish."

Because "Corbyn can't do Jezza the Hawk. He has too many principles; doesn't believe in war, can't think of any conflict that has made things better and… can't help sounding as if he believes that all situations can be resolved with one-to-one counselling."

Corbyn's colleagues looked miserable, says Isabel Hardman in The Spectator. "Even the frontbenchers, particularly Tom Watson, looked unhappy. Andy Burnham looked even more doleful than usual. On the backbenches, MPs such as Dan Jarvis and Caroline Flint wore masks of agony."

Tory MPs "chuckled" when Corbyn finally tried to tackle what Cameron had been talking about – by listing what he believed had been left out of the review: inequality, poverty, disease, human rights abuses, climate change... The list went on.

"Labour MPs froze with embarrassment," says Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail. "It was as dotty and weak an analysis of defence as any of them can have feared. Mr Cameron reminded the House that until recently Mr Corbyn said he wanted our Army to be dismantled. Mr Corbyn twitched. He knows he is doing terribly."

Where does this leave Labour moderates?

Dan Hodges in the Daily Telegraph is clear: members of the shadow cabinet must go to Corbyn and tell him "squarely to his face" that unless he joins with them in backing military action against Islamic State in a Commons vote expected next week they will resign.

"No fixes, no fudges, but a simple choice. You back the government, you back our allies, your back the United Nations, you back the majority view of your senior colleagues, or you can have my portfolio."

For the last two months, Hodges argues, the shadow cabinet has effectively been telling the people of Britain: "We don't trust our leader on the most important issues facing our country, but you should." Says Hodges: "This is unsustainable."

But while Labour moderates might be losing patience, the Corbynistas, via the grassroots Momentum group, are flexing their muscles, says Rachel Sylvester in The Times.

After Ann Coffey, MP for Stockport, was told to "get behind the leader or kindly go" by her local Momentum group, other Labour MPs worry that hard-left organisations are attaching themselves to Momentum in order to influence the Labour party, with the tacit approval of the leadership, says Sylvester.

Tomorrow, shadow chancellor John McDonnell is due to speak at a 'Keep up the Momentum' meeting in Waltham Forest, where left-wingers are trying to seize key party positions and have discussed ousting local MP Stella Creasy. "It is extraordinary that this should be the shadow chancellor's priority on the day of the autumn statement," says Sylvester.

"MPs know they cannot oust Mr Corbyn less than three months after he was elected by 60 per cent of party members. But they also fear that, the longer they leave it, the more the left will have secured its hold…

"This is turning into a race to the death between the MPs who want to throw out their leader and the Corbynistas who want to purge the moderates."

Jeremy Corbyn 'set to retreat over Syria vote'

23 November

After Labour's "worst-ever week" (courtesy of former Blair aide John McTernan), Jeremy Corbyn is under serious pressure to allow all Labour MPs a free vote on whether Britain should join the US and France in bombing Islamic State targets within Syria. He faces a shadow cabinet walkout if he doesn't allow them to vote with their conscience, some reports claim.

The prospect of a Corbyn "retreat" on this comes as a new poll shows the majority of voters don't trust him to defend their families against danger, and a senior union leader says it's time Labour got its act together. On top of everything, even Ed Miliband has felt emboldened to tell a fellow Labour MP: "I bet you didn't think things would actually get worse."

The Syria ultimatum

Last week, Jeremy Corbyn was still insisting there would be no free vote on bombing IS in Syria. Now The Times reports that the shadow cabinet will tell him this week that if he tries to force Labour members to oppose air strikes he will "leave the party hopelessly divided and prompt frontbench resignations".

The BBC's Norman Smith told Radio 4's Today programme that a large tranche of Labour MPs now looked likely to vote for military intervention, with only the "Corbynista bloc" voting against.

The Daily Telegraph says Corbyn is clearly on the brink of retreat after his shadow chancellor and closest colleague, John McDonnell, suggested on the Andrew Marr Show that Labour was now "open" to a free vote.

Angela Eagle, the shadow first secretary of state, is among those thought likely to vote for military action. "In a broad hint that she saw a case for air strikes, she said that a UN resolution vowing to take on Isis represented 'progress'," The Times reports.

There's another potential excuse for a shadow cabinet walkout, according to the Mail on Sunday. If Labour were to lose the Oldham West and Royton by-election, which comes up on December 3, Corbyn's opponents plan to table a no-confidence vote among Labour MPs and "mount a mass resignation of shadow ministers". The Mail tips shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn as favourite for interim leader.

With a 14,738 majority at the last election, Oldham West is one of the party's safest seats and should not be in danger. However, Ukip is doing everything it can to exploit Corbyn's perceived weakness on terrorism and immigration. And a new ComRes voting intention poll has Labour slipping 15 points behind the Tories nationwide (27 per cent to 42 per cent).

The anti-Corbyn chorus grows

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband has been caught telling another Labour MP: "I bet you didn't think things would actually get worse", according to the Mail on Sunday.

Miliband was in the Commons smoking room when he was overheard talking to Graham Stringer, a Manchester MP who was one of Miliband's most outspoken critics when he led the party between 2010 and May this year. Which is why he also told Stringer: "But I won't be appointing you as chairman of the campaign for me to return as leader".

One MP present told the Mail there had been "a sharp edge" to Miliband's remarks, adding: "He is obviously not serious about returning as leader, but you get the sense he wants some sort of role again."

The Guardian, which has independently verified the Miliband-Stringer exchange, makes the point that Miliband had previously kept his opinions about Corbyn "close to his chest". (Not least because it was – in the view of most Labour MPs – Miliband who saddled them with Corbyn by introducing the idea of party "supporters" who would only have to fork out £3 to entitle them to take part in the leadership vote.)

Meanwhile Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, which represents 1.3 million workers, has become the first union leader to openly attack Corbyn, the Independent on Sunday reports. The Labour leader did not appear to understand ordinary people's concerns, said Prentice, including "their money worries" and "their need to feel safe and secure".

"Divisive rows over Trident or shoot-to-kill are distractions no one needs," Prentice went on. "It's got to stop. If it doesn't, Labour stands little chance of winning back the millions who deserted the party in May."

Feeling unsafe – and other poll findings

Prentis's remarks about low public confidence in Corbyn are backed by the findings of a new ComRes poll conducted since Corbyn made his infamous remark last Monday about being "not happy" at a shoot-to-kill policy being implemented in London should jihadi terrorists strike here as they did in Paris.

Fifty-eight per cent of people canvassed said they did not trust Corbyn to keep them and their families safe. Only 17 per cent trusted Corbyn on this front, while 39 per cent trusted David Cameron.

ComRes also found that 65 per cent of the public believe killing British citizens in Syria is justified if our security services say they have joined IS. Also, 70 per cent agree that they must accept "infringements of privacy" on the internet for the sake of fighting terrorism. Only 17 per cent disagree.

Any silver linings for Corbyn?

Yes. While four in 10 voters say Labour MPs should mount a coup to remove him as leader, most Labour voters – 56 per cent – disagree. Corbyn will be able to point to this as further proof that he has the support of Labour members, if not the wider general public, says The Independent.

And while Corbyn's favourability rating may have slipped further since September to -28 (22 per cent favourable vs 50 per cent unfavourable), Tory Chancellor George Osborne is not far behind him on –19. Compare that with fellow Tories David Cameron on -4 and Boris Johnson on +17. And that's before Osborne delivers his Autumn Statement on Wednesday.

Jeremy Corbyn beats PM in satisfaction poll

20 November

Against the run of play, Jeremy Corbyn gets a boost from a new Ipsos Mori poll which shows that voters are happier with his performance as Labour leader than they are with David Cameron's recent record as PM.

But is the electorate truly aware of what Corbyn is fighting for? In the wake of his controversial remarks about the Paris attacks, two commentators seek to paint him in what they say are his true colours.

The new polling

The leaders of all four major English parties receive negative satisfaction ratings in the latest Ipsos Mori survey. However, Jeremy Corbyn on -3 fares better than Nigel Farage (-12), Tim Farron (-14) and David Cameron (-15).

The Independent notes that Corbyn was the only one not to see a fall in his rating since the last poll a month ago.

The polling was conducted between 14 and 17 November, which means that only some of the respondents will have been aware of the controversy over Corbyn's post-Paris comments – his view that the West is partly to blame, and his "unhappiness" at a shoot-a-kill policy being implemented should terrorists attack London. These only began to make the headlines on Monday.

However, it appears that what most concerns the public is the fate of our public services – especially the NHS – and this could explain both Cameron's slump in popularity and Corbyn's relatively flattering ratings.

According to Ipsos Mori, 67 per cent of Britons disagree with the notion that the Tory government's policies will improve the state of public services (up from 60 per cent in March) – with only 27 per cent agreeing with the notion (down from 33 per cent).

Furthermore, while previous polls have shown Britons generally agreeing that the Tories' austerity programme is a necessary evil, more people now appear to be questioning Chancellor George Osborne's hardball tactics.

Thirty-four per cent say further spending cuts are still necessary, but they are easily outweighed by the total of those who think cuts were necessary but no longer are (32 per cent) and those who believe that they were never necessary in the first place (27 per cent).

All of which should be encouraging for Corbyn in the run-up to Osborne's Autumn Statement next Wednesday – if it were not for another poll, this one from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

This research, using a sample size twice as large as Ipsos Mori's, found that 67 per cent of voters have no idea what Corbyn is saying: they either don't know or cannot recall what he's on about, or they believe his message is "rubbish" and "incoherent" – or that he's just saying "anything anti-Tory".

James Morris of The Spectator says: "Clearly, if voters don't understand your priorities, or think you are obsessed with nuclear disarmament, they are less likely to vote for you than if they believe you're focused on helping working people."

So, what DOES Corbyn stand for?

In the light of his post-Paris remarks, two commentators are urging readers to consider the reality of Corbyn's motives and beliefs.

For Damian McBride in The Guardian, the Labour leader is obsessed with the history of Marxist revolutions, which explains why he's currently more fixated on seizing control of his party's internal machinery than trying to persuade the public to vote Labour.

This, says McBride, is why he appoints "only true believers to his key shadow cabinet and inner circle jobs" and "is allowing Unite the union to terrorise the party's staff and MPs like a homage to the Bolsheviks' NKVD secret police.

"Why? Because, as any good Marxist knows, you must secure your revolution against the enemies within – including the temptation to dilute the purity of your principles and policies – before there is any chance of taking on your enemies without."

McBride reminds us that it is only 15 years since "the last successful socialist revolution in Britain" – Ken Livingstone's first election as London mayor.

But Corbyn should beware, says McBride: Livingstone's victories in 2000 and 2004 showed that a far-left maverick can command popular support by speaking his mind and sticking to his principles. But he went on to lose badly in 2008 and 2012 when Labour was swamped by the support for Boris Johnson in the suburbs.

In 2008, Gordon Brown, then leading an increasingly unpopular Labour government, got the blame. If Labour's Sadiq Khan cannot beat the Tories' Zac Goldsmith in the mayoral election next May, "Khan will waste no time in putting the blame on Corbyn's absence of appeal to those middle-income voters".

If Khan does lose, says McBride, "I confidently predict Corbyn will be gone within a week. He is a fine and decent man, and he will jump before he is pushed. If he doesn't, the pushing will not take long."

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner research (above) will come as no surprise to Nick Cohen in The Spectator: he argues that Corbyn's leadership is defined by his inability to state clearly his true beliefs.

"Corbyn and the left he comes from cannot campaign for office by saying what they really think or they would horrify the bulk of the population," says Cohen.

So Corbyn's first reaction is always to please his "base" and then "dodge and shift" when the media come knocking and he has to speak to the rest of us.

"On Monday, Labour MPs implored him to reject the idea that an attack on Parisians by a fascistic Islamist movement was the West's fault. He ducked into woozy bureaucratic language and said Stop the War's argument was 'inappropriate'. He refused to condemn it, however. How could he when he would be rejecting everything he believed for 40 years?"

Cohen argues that Corbyn is not anti-war, he's just anti-west.

He excused the Russian invasion of Ukraine by arguing that the Kremlin had been provoked by the West. With his shadow chancellor John McDonnell he has defended the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas. Like others on the far left, they are pro-Assad.

"So committed to Syrian Ba'athism are Stop the War [the group Corbyn recently chaired] that they tried to stop Syrian refugees from Assad's terror speaking at their meetings… You cannot describe a far left that can overlook Assad's atrocities as pacifist."

Cohen concludes: "A chorus of approval from ignorant cliche-mongers accompanied Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour's leader. He was authentic... an honest man making a new politics.

"Far from being authentic, Jeremy Corbyn is one of the most dishonest politicians you will see in your lifetime."

Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone: silly mistakes don't go away

19 November

Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone were taught the same lesson yesterday: retracting – or apologising for – an unguarded comment will never make the original controversy go away if your political enemies don't want it to.

Corbyn's "clarification" of his position on shoot-to-kill has entirely failed to deal with the outrage he's caused by saying he was "not happy" with the strategy, even if terrorists were to threaten Londoners with what they perpetrated in Paris.

Livingstone's eventual apology – it took some hours coming – for telling a Labour MP with a known history of depression that he "should get psychiatric help" has done nothing to rectify the insult to millions of people with mental health issues.

Corbyn: from 'not happy' to 'wretched'

When Jeremy Corbyn used the last of his six questions to the prime minister yesterday to ask David Cameron whether the Tories would protect neighbourood policing, the PM came back with a "zinger" in the words of Mike Smithson at Political Betting.

"Hasn't it come to something," Cameron said, "when the leader of the opposition thinks that the police, when confronted with a Kalashnikov-wielding terrorist, isn't sure what the reaction should be?"

Corbyn had sought on Tuesday to clarify his "not happy" remark, saying: "Of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

But as his MPs feared, "it was the original quote that damned him and which the Tories will repeatedly recall," writes George Eaton of the New Statesman.

Not just Tories: Labour members, too. Former home secretary David Blunkett told Radio 4's Today programme this morning that voters are "bewildered" by Corbyn, and that the party leader has "only a short space of time" to show he wants to be prime minister and knows how to do the job. "He's got a lot to learn," said Blunkett.

Political commentators have generally painted a miserable picture of Corbyn's appearance at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday lunchtime.

The Labour leader rose to his feet "to the sound of a party falling apart", says the Financial Times. "No jeering or heckling, just sullen silence from ranks of Labour MPs who believe their leader is taking them into a political abyss."

John Crace in The Guardian picks up on Corbyn's physical appearance. "Fed up, lacklustre and sleep-deprived didn't begin to cover how wretched Jeremy Corbyn looked," he writes.

"Just about everything that could go wrong for the man who had never really wanted the top job in the first place had gone wrong in the past 24 hours. That much of the trouble was of his own making only added to the sense of despair."

Livingstone: who's the silly one?

Corbyn's decision to invite Ken Livingstone, well known for his opposition to Trident, to co-convene Labour's defence strategy review alongside shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle – without warning Eagle – has gone down badly with pro-Trident Labour MPs.

Among those who complained was shadow junior defence minister Kevan Jones, who asked what Livingstone knew about defence.

The former London mayor used an interview with the Daily Mirror to come back at Jones, saying he was "obviously very depressed and disturbed" and "should see a GP".

Faced with a barrage of complaints, Livingstone said he was unaware that Jones suffered from depression – despite the MP having made headlines in 2012 when he talked openly about his illness in the Commons. Yet Livingstone repeatedly refused to apologise, even with Corbyn pressing him to do so.

Eventually he caved in and issued what the Mirror called a "grovelling" apology in a pair of Twitter postings:

"I unreservedly apologise to Kevan Jones for my comments. They should not have been made at all, let alone in this context," he said.

"I also make this apology because Jeremy [Corbyn] is right to insist on a more civil politics and as a party we should take this seriously".

But by now the damage was done. Kevan Jones writes in the Daily Telegraph today that Livingstone owes an apology not just to him but to millions who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses.

Nor did it help that on Newsnight last night Livingstone called Eagle "silly" and appeared to backtrack on his apology to Jones, saying, "If anyone's offended, I'm very sorry about that, but the reality is he started this row [by questioning Livingstone's appointment]."

As The Spectator comments, "Perhaps it is time for Ken to stop answering the phone when it comes to media requests."

And perhaps it's time for Corbyn to rectify the matter before Livingstone gives the Conservatives any further ammunition. On the Today programme, David Blunkett joined the chorus of calls for Livingstone to "step away".

Jeremy Corbyn: shoot-to-kill U-turn comes too late

18 November

Even newspaper commentators and Labour MPs eager to give Jeremy Corbyn a chance, and who admire his measured tones when interviewed by the media on subjects as complex as Syria, are running out of patience with what The Times leader calls "his appeasing views on the war against terrorism".

Yesterday, the Labour leader sought to "clarify" his controversial remark, made in a BBC interview on Monday, that he was "not happy" with a shoot-to-kill policy being implemented in London should terrorists launch Parisian-style attacks here.

After senior Labour figures expressed their dismay, and the Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe warned against undermining police officers who have to take split-second decisions "unincumbered" by doubt, Corbyn issued a statement saying:

"Of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

It was too late, however, to pacify Labour MPs who stood up in the Commons yesterday to denounce their leader's views – not just on shoot-to-kill, but on the West's need to "share the blame" for the Islamic State attacks on Paris.

Nor did Corbyn's U-turn impress the many newspaper commentators who, even if they welcome the Labour leader's reluctance to rush to war, believe his views on tackling terrorism make him ill-equipped to lead the country.

In the Commons

In what the Daily Mail describes as "barely concealed attacks" on Corbyn, a succession of Labour backbenchers and shadow ministers stood up in the Commons yesterday to back David Cameron's stance against IS and question their own leader's response to the Paris attacks.

Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, put this question to David Cameron: "May I ask the prime minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do? Does he agree that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them like children, when the truth is that they are adults who are entirely responsible for what they do?"

Cameron responded: "It is that sort of moral and intellectual clarity that is necessary in dealing with terrorists."

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, looked directly at Corbyn instead of Cameron as he said: "I agree with everything the Prime Minister said about Syria and about terrorism."

David Hanson, shadow foreign office minister, praised Cameron for setting out "with absolute clarity" that the government's first duty is to protect its citizens.

Ann Coffey, who, the Daily Telegraph reports, has been warned by the Corbyn-supporting grassroots group Momentum in her constituency of Stockport to "get behind the leader or kindly go", told Cameron that Britain's multiculturalism could be destroyed unless "every possible action" is taken to "defeat these murderous terrorists".

Off the record

What is disturbing, writes the BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, is that members of the 'make it work' brigade – those moderate Labour MPs and shadow ministers who decided to buckle down and serve under Corbyn for the good of the party – are joining in.

After Monday's fiery meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, at which Corbyn was heckled by his backbench critics, one shadow minister told Kuenssberg: "I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn't stand it." He added: "He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country."

Says Kuenssberg: "Frankly, I have rarely heard reactions like it." She quotes another senior moderate saying Corbyn "fundamentally misunderstands" the nature of the security threat Britain faces and that he has shown in recent days that "none of his gut instincts chime with the public beyond his niche group".

In the press

This last point – that Corbyn is speaking only to his supporters and not the country as a whole – is picked up by Matthew Norman in The Independent.

Norman says he admires Corbyn's refusal to "spout fatuous gibberish in populism’s cause" and, right now, Britain needs him to lead the opposition to a bombing campaign in Syria, by arguing "with calm and cogent passion against indulging the reflex desire for vengeance".

But his remarks about Jihadi John needing to be brought to justice rather that "obliterated" by a US drone attack, and his questioning of a shoot-to-kill policy to deal with murderous terrorists, make him come across to voters as "devoid of visceral revulsion and fury about what happened in Paris".

Says Norman: "To get people to listen to intelligent things in times which demand ritual stupidity, a would-be national leader must first capture the mood of the nation he wishes to lead. Until now, Corbyn has spoken eloquently for a minority that has awaited a voice like his for too long. This week, sad to say, he spoke for almost no one but himself."

Under the headline 'Corbyn's idiocy is ripping Labour apart', James Kirkup in the Daily Telegraph offers what he calls "a condensed summary" of the views held by Labour MPs about their leader after the Paris attacks. Here it is:

"Jeremy Corbyn is a political disaster, either incapable of understanding the feelings of British voters or fully aware of the voters' opinions but contemptuous of those opinions... He simply does not grasp the scale of the security threat now facing Western nations from Islamic terrorism, and his plea to understand the root causes of that terrorism actually indicates sympathy with murderers and a willingness to exculpate their crimes."

Corbyn is right to argue that Britain's security should be built on something more than bullets and bombs, says The Guardian in an editorial, but he needs to raise his game. "A first instinct to talk about national security not as an aspiring prime minister but as a campaigner at a rally against police brutality is plainly bad news for Labour prospects."

How long can this go on?

Mary Riddell in the Daily Telegraph says Monday night's fiery PLP meeting was described to her as "the nadir of the Corbyn leadership and the moment when all goodwill drained away". She adds: "Not since Neville Chamberlain cautioned against becoming embroiled in 'a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing' has a political leader invited greater ignominy."

With even his friendlier MPs losing patience, how long can Corbyn withstand the pressure?

Some commentators believe he must cut all ties with Stop the War, or at least refuse the invitation to attend its pre-Christmas fundraising event. This is the group – for some years chaired by Corbyn – which drew fury for tweeting in the aftermath of the Paris attacks that the French had paid the price – or "reaped the whirlwind" – for the West's support "for extremist violence in the Middle East".

So far, Corbyn has declined to say whether he will attend the event or not. This, reports the Evening Standard, "leaves dangling the possibility" that shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn may quit the front bench in protest.

The Times believes the Labour leader also risks shadow cabinet resignations because of his controversial decision, announced this morning, to invite Ken Livingstone to co-convene Labour's policy commission on defence with Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary. Livingstone, like Corbyn, is a staunch opponent of Trident: Eagle wants to keep it.

In the short term, Corbyn might get some respite when parliamentary attention refocuses on George Osborne's Autumn Statement, due next Wednesday. But then Corbyn and the economy is another story.

Jeremy Corbyn after Paris: he's a f***ing disgrace says senior Labour MP

17 November

The rift between Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his MPs appears to be growing with each new remark he makes about British security in the light of the killing of 'Jihadi John' and the atrocities perpetrated in Paris by Islamic State terrorists.

"He's a f***ing disgrace," one Labour MP told the press after a fiery meeting between backbenchers and their leader last night where Corbyn sought to explain his pacifist views. Some left the 70-minute encounter shaking their heads, refusing to speak to reporters. One accused Corbyn of living in la-la land.

Philip Webster, author of The Times's daily political newsletter, says his informants tell him the patience of some Labour MPs with Corbyn is "at breaking point".

Just as Corbyn arrived at this new low point, the Prime Minister announced at lunchtime today that he has not given up on seeking a Commons mandate to bomb IS targets inside Syria.

The Paris attacks, he told the Commons, had led him to ask “if we are doing everything we can do, and should do” to help our allies take on the jihadists. As a result, he was determined to build a case for tackling IS on several fronts, including bombing, and would be seeking a new vote.

What has Corbyn been saying?

Having questioned the legitimacy of the "obliteration" of Jihadi John by a US drone, the Labour leader has now criticised the French president, Francois Hollande, for ordering French air force jets to bomb Raqqa on Sunday night in response to the Paris atrocities. Bombing militants would "probably not" make a difference, he told ITV's Lorraine show. "One war does not necessarily bring about peace."

Corbyn has also said he is "not happy" with the British government announcing a shoot-to-kill policy should IS terrorists arrive on the streets of London and attempt something similar to the Paris attacks.

He has blamed the West for helping to create the situation that led to the killings in the French capital.

How did Labour backbenchers react?

A Corbyn spokesman insisted to the Daily Mirror that only a minority of backbenchers spoke out against the party leader when he reiterated these positions at last night's weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). But some MPs who were there described fiery exchanges between backbenchers and Corbyn, who they said got "hot under the collar".

One Labour MP quoted in the Financial Times said he was "furious" about Corbyn's insistence that the West must share the blame for Paris. "I reject this idea that there is a moral equivalence between them [Islamic State] and the West, it is just not true and it is very distressing and embarrassing."

The anonymous MP added: "I am quite angry at the whole notion that somehow a military option is something that is always destined to fail and I think we should keep it on the table."

The FT also reports that some MPs were "incredulous" at the notion that Mohammed Emwazi – Jihadi John – could somehow have been extracted from the IS-controlled caliphate and dropped into the British justice system. "It's a kind of la la idealism that is divorced from reality," said one backbencher.

What about his frontbench team?

The Mirror reports one shadow minister storming out of the PLP meeting saying of Corbyn: "He doesn't answer anything. He got roasted, he's a f****** disgrace."

Crucially, The Guardian reports a split between Corbyn and his shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn.

The Labour leader "failed to attract any applause" when he was questioned about his approach to IS while Benn was applauded for reminding MPs that Islamic State forces are guilty of beheadings, rapes and the murder of gay people. "They are without doubt fascists," Benn said.

And in a pointed dig at Corbyn, Benn said: "To those that say that taking action in Syria will make things worse, I say, things are pretty bad for those in Syria and for our citizens too."

The Guardian quotes one Labour MP saying: "It is utterly unsustainable to have the leader of the Labour party and the shadow foreign secretary setting out completely different positions."

As for those present who do take Corbyn's side, the Mirror reports that Diane Abbott, shadow international development minister, upset some backbenchers by sitting through these angry exchanges apparently oblivious to the drama.

"She wasn't listening to the questions, just writing a big stack of Christmas cards," one of those attending told The Mirror. "It was deeply disrespectful."

What happens next?

The applause Benn received when he said "We should not rule anything in or anything out" exposes the fact that more and more Labour backbenchers seem prepared to vote against the party line and back the bombing of IS targets within Syria when Cameron holds a new vote.

This is where Corbyn's intransigence could split the party – because he suggested yesterday that he would not allow Labour MPs or frontbenchers to vote with their conscience on the matter.

"I don't think a free vote is something we are offering," he told Sky News.

However, The Guardian reports "several" Labour MPs saying they did not feel they got a clear answer out of the leader about whether they would be obliged to follow the official position.

David Cameron made it clear today he would not be asking the same question that got a No in the 2013 Commons vote: he will be taking his time to put together a package of measures, which will include bombing IS targets in Syria. Laura Kuennsberg, political editor of the BBC, says the PM is committed to making his case “more firmly and more comprehensively" in a bid to win over a majority of MPs.

With the horrors of Paris fresh in their minds, and with as many as 50 Labour MPs - possibly more - prepared to vote against Corbyn’s wishes, and with some Tory rebels having come round to the idea, the vote could “sneak through” says Kuennsberg.

What about the voters?

With the pressure mounting all sides for Corbyn, we can expect new opinion polling on the Labour leader's popularity soon. And there's a real poll in a fortnight's time when the Oldham West and Royton by-election, caused by the death of Michael Meacher, takes place.

As Andrew Rawnsley wrote in The Observer this Sunday, this is a two-horse race between Labour and Ukip. Nigel Farage's party is hoping to overturn Meacher's near-15,000 majority by painting Corbyn as "an unpatriotic friend of immigration who would leave Britain defenceless", making the by-election a "referendum" on his leadership.

How will Corbyn's views on Jihadi John and Syria play with ordinary people in this South Pennines seat who expect their politicians to be tough on terrorism?

Not well, says Tom Harris, a former Scottish Labour MP, in an article for the Daily Telegraph headlined 'Jeremy Corbyn doesn't even have the decency to be angry about the Paris terror attacks'.

Harris argues: "To those of us who felt – and still feel – murderous rage at what happened to our fellow Europeans a short skip across the English Channel, Corbyn's suggestion of a political settlement in Syria leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment."

While Harris believes Corbyn is moving further and further away from popular public opinion, another Labour watcher told The Week: “It’s important to remember that Corbyn is in touch with public feeling in that there’s very little appetite for returning to war after Iraq and Libya. The trouble is he doesn’t put his case in a confident, statesmanlike way.”

Rachel Sylvester in The Times complains that Corbyn is "still behaving like a protester rather than a potential prime minister".

"There's no other explanation for his refusal, if elected, to press the nuclear button – a position of purity completely at odds with the principle of deterrence," says Sylvester. "But when it comes to national security, the stakes are too high to treat politics as a game."

Jeremy Corbyn 'must commit to fighting IS – or else'

16 November

In the wake of Islamic State's atrocities in Paris and the killing of Mohammed Emwazi – Jihadi John – in a US drone strike, will it be national security rather than the economy that proves the undoing of Jeremy Corbyn?

Several press commentators believe Corbyn's statements responding to the two events have raised more questions than they answered. Is this the moment Labour MPs will look to Dan Jarvis, who many moderates wanted as leader, to bring clarity and unity to the party's security strategy?

The killing of Jihadi John

What Corbyn said: "It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes," the Labour leader said in statement issued on Friday. "However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law.

"These events only underline the necessity of accelerating international efforts, under the auspices of the UN, to bring an end to the Syrian conflict as part of a comprehensive regional settlement."

The response: Many human rights lawyers and activists have backed Corbyn – saying the US action amounted to an extrajudicial killing, a polite phrase for assassination – and decrying David Cameron's "triumphalist" announcement of the death of Jihadi John.

But the Labour leader was swiftly "ridiculed" by a member of his own party, the Daily Mail reported. Ian Austin, Labour MP for Dudley North, tweeted: "I'm sure he'd have come quietly."

Similarly, the Daily Telegraph quoted an anonymous shadow minister describing Corbyn's statement as "naïve" and saying that it was "not like arresting someone down a local shop".

Yet the Daily Mail quoted the widow of David Haines, one of Emwazi's victims, echoing Corbyn's thoughts. "I really wish it was handled a different way," said Dragana Haines. "I was always wondering what's in his head. The perfect way for all of us would have been to see him in a courtroom."

Today, Lord (Norman) Tebbit says Corbyn should be "pressed to say whether, if he had been prime minister, he would have helped or hindered our American friends kill that British subject Jihadi John".

And who would have benefited had Emwazi been brought to justice, asks Tebbit. "Perhaps first of all Emwazi himself, given a platform from which to spew out his insane bile and incite his followers to even greater violence.

"After that, as usual, the lawyers, wallets bulging, elbows sharpened, would have been struggling to grab the biggest share of the millions of pounds in legal costs."

The Paris attacks

What Corbyn said: "Today, all our thoughts and sympathy are with the people of Paris," he said in a statement issued on Saturday.

"What took place in the French capital yesterday was horrific and immoral. We stand in solidarity with the people of France – as with all victims of terror and violence."

But he added: "It's vital at a time of such tragedy and outrage not to be drawn into responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred." (Full text available here.)

The response: Even before Corbyn had said anything public about the Paris attacks, John Rentoul of The Independent had tweeted at 10pm on Friday: "Will Corbyn say France made itself a target?"

Under a barrage of complaints from angry Independent readers, who, the Huffington Post reports, accused Rentoul of trying to politicise the issue before the full facts of the event were known, Rentoul removed the tweet on Saturday morning and said he regretted posting it.

John McTernan, a former aide to Tony Blair and a regular anti-Corbyn commentator, says the attacks on Paris mean Corbyn must commit Labour to "crushing Isis", in Syria as well as Iraq. The use of brutal force would, he says in an article for The Times, be a show of solidarity with the French people.

McTernan also argues that Labour has a profound responsibility for the consequences of its decision in 2013, under Ed Miliband, to vote against Britain bombing Isis in Syria.

"Corbyn's unilateralism and unswerving support for opponents of the United States in international conflicts will be tested by what has happened in Paris," says McTernan.

"In normal times, Labour's main struggle is to convince the public that they can be trusted on the economy… But we don't live in normal times, and economic credibility comes a long way second in voters' minds. It's not economic security they worry about, but security pure and simple."

McTernan concludes: "A bomb on a Russian plane. Slaughter on the streets of Paris. What more indication is needed that IS needs to be destroyed?"

So, could this be Dan Jarvis's moment?

It's a "particularly tricky time" for Labour's leader, writes Sebastian Payne for Politico.

On Saturday morning, Corbyn had to cancel a speech he was due to make that afternoon at a regional Labour conference when he realised that his proposed attack on the foreign policies of recent governments – Labour included – was not appropriate in the wake of the Paris killings.

Corbyn had been due to say that "for the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East. They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process."

Instead, he issued his warning against feeding "the cycle of violence and hatred". Says Payne: "The Corbynites are pleased with this response and argue the party should not make any radical shifts regarding military action".

For Corbyn's opponents, however, his response to the events in Paris "has confirmed their worst fears", says Payne.

He quotes from an article in The Sun by the Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, one Corbyn's most vocal critics. "If we're all working together to make Britain safer, we can't have an opposition that appears not to take terrorism seriously," says Danczuk. "There are many Labour moderates who don't like the tone being set by Jeremy Corbyn on national security — and it's time we made clear where we stand."

As Payne suggests, Danczuk's response is predictable. What is more interesting is that the security issue has made Dan Jarvis put his head above the parapet.

Jarvis is a rare combination – a Labour MP (for Barnsley Central) and a former serving Army officer. Many within Labour believe that if he were to lead the party, they'd have a decent chance in 2020. But he declined to run in this summer's leadership race for family reasons – he was recently widowed – and has generally kept his opinions about Corbyn's leadership to himself.

Now, in an article for the Daily Mirror, Jarvis has made it clear where he stands on Britain's security. The battle with IS, he argues, "could yet be the defining test for our generation".

There needs to be a collective response to the Paris attacks, says Jarvis, "borne out of a coherent strategy – not a series of piecemeal interventions but a clear plan that draws on all means at our disposal: military, diplomatic, economic and cultural, leveraging both our hard and soft power".

What Jarvis is saying is not radical, says Payne, but he is "giving a voice to many Labour MPs who are concerned about the leadership's stance" on IS and British military action.

If the government does propose a joined-up plan for taking on IS in the coming weeks, and Corbyn sticks to his pacifist principles, can he expect his 231 MPs – only 20 of whom voted for him – to rally around?

Jeremy Corbyn's cunning plan to stop plotters

13 November

Jeremy Corbyn is hoping to force through a crucial change to Labour Party rules to ensure that if moderates mount a challenge to his leadership he is not cast aside, The Independent reports.

Corbyn wants the party's national executive committee (NEC) to agree that in the event of a challenger coming forward, he as party leader will automatically be included on the ballot paper without the need to seek nominations from MPs and MEPs.

Why's he doing it?

Simple. He may be hugely popular with party members and supporters – 60 per cent of whom voted for him in the leadership election – but he remains hugely unpopular with Labour MPs: fewer than 20 of the party's 232 MPs are thought to have voted for him and he's done little since to increase his popularity. His recent remark about refusing to press the nuclear button was a case in point: most Labour MPs agree that retaining Trident is a must if the party is to be taken seriously by the electorate.

Corbyn was able to enter the leadership contest only because a number of MPs were persuaded to "lend" him their nominations so that the party had a broad selection of candidates – from Liz Kendall on the right, to Corbyn on the left – to choose from.

Labour MPs won't make that mistake again. Hence Corbyn's request for a guaranteed spot on the ballot paper.

Will he get his way?

The Independent claims the rule change could be debated as early as next Tuesday and because the majority of the 33 NEC members – who include trade unionists and constituency party representatives - support him, Corbyn has a good chance of it being endorsed.

However, the change would then have to be approved by next autumn's annual party conference when a lot could depend on how the party fares in May's Scottish, Welsh and London elections. "Our only hope is that party members judge he is useless and decide to avoid a meltdown in 2020," one anti-Corbyn MP told The Independent.

If the rules are not rewritten, Corbyn could have to find a total of 50 MPs and MEPs to nominate him. (At the last election, it was only Westminster MPs who took part in the nomination process: MEPs have been added under a new rule introduced at this year's party conference.)

What are the chances of a challenge?

It depends on who you listen to. Among those itching to get rid of Corbyn is the Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk who says he's willing to stand as a "stalking horse" candidate if Corbyn's leadership proves a flop at the May 2016 elections. This strategy would save a real contender from the stigma of being seen as a party traitor: though once Danczuk has declared, any number of others could pile in behind him.

However, a report on the state of the anti-Corbynites – or the "unbelievers' – published by The Guardian yesterday found little appetite for a challenge.

"Nobody's seriously plotting a coup, for the simple reason there is no point," wrote Gaby Hinsliff. "Behind Corbyn are hundreds of thousands of party members who believe in what he stands for, are thrilled to hear it voiced openly, and would replace him with another left-winger if he fell under a bus tomorrow."

As The Independent reports, "Some MPs believe the party could give him an even bigger majority" were he to be challenged.

So, what do the moderates do instead?

The lack of hunger for a coup doesn't mean the moderates are standing still. Hinsliff points to the "sprouting" of new think tanks and an upsurge in interest in the "previously obscure ginger group" Labour First. "It has become an impromptu rallying point for streetfighters and backroom fixers from different wings of the party united only by a desire to keep the hard left's hands off the party machine."

Labour First's secretary, Luke Akehurst, told Hinsliff: "We're not interested in being disloyal; our gut instinct is to be loyal to whoever's the Labour leader… But we have our red lines and Trident is the obvious one… We also don't want the rule book mucked around with."

However, Akehurst admits that Labour moderates need to match what he calls the "moral attractiveness" of Corbynism.

"In the same way he brought in all these new people, we need candidates and policies and ideologies that can inspire hundreds of thousands of people. We've somehow got ourselves boxed into this technocratic corner, where people say: 'They're boring, they haven't said anything new since the 90s, they're just about making tough decisions and being miserable.'"

The latest Labour MP to criticise her party leader publicly is Gisela Stuart, who represents Birmingham Edgbaston. She says he must make more of an effort to win over voters who don't support him.

"Jeremy Corbyn had remarkable success in packing public halls to overflowing, but the audiences were already supporters of his cause," she says in an article for Prospect magazine.

"Ideas need to be tested in hostile, critical environments. If the party insulates itself from intellectual challenge, it will get nowhere."

Stuart also warns that reading out "individual cases of hardship" at Prime Minister's Questions will have little impact if Corbyn fails to explain exactly what Labour plans to do to help.

The Birmingham Mail points out that West Midlands MPs like Stuart are among Corbyn's harshest critics because the region "has a number of marginal seats which Labour may need to win in order to win a general election".

Jeremy Corbyn did NOT kneel before the Queen

12 November

We have the answer. Jeremy Corbyn was sworn into the Privy Council yesterday – but the lifelong republican did not kneel before the Queen, The Guardian reports.

Labour says he "complied with the usual processes", which would normally mean kneeling on a footstool and kissing Her Majesty's hand.

However, The Guardian understands that "Buckingham Palace does not force Privy Council members to do things they are not comfortable with and that Corbyn did not kneel".

The Labour leader certainly had no intention of doing so. He told ITV News before the ceremony: "I don't expect to be kneeling at all, no. I expect to be nominated to the Privy Council and that's it."

Corbyn now has the right to be addressed as the Right Honourable and to see confidential briefings regarding national security.

"Welcome to the Establishment," the Daily Telegraph responds in an editorial today. "This avowed republican has accepted the authority of the crown, just as he agreed to wear a red poppy, donned white tie for a state banquet and learnt to sing the national anthem."

The Telegraph welcomes "these sensible compromises on his misguided principles" and looks forward to the Labour leader Corbyn continuing "his highly entertaining metamorphosis".

What next, the paper muses. "Membership of White's? The Royal Enclosure at Ascot – suitably attired, of course? And then, on his inevitable retirement, a viscountcy is surely the least this noble public servant deserves from his grateful nation."

The Telegraph editorial comes too late for inclusion in a detailed examination in the London Review of Books (LRB) of the media coverage Corbyn has encountered since being elected party leader.

Among the issues addressed by the LRB's Paul Myerscough is whether the press coverage "matters": after all, none of the broadsheet papers is now read by more than one per cent of Britain's adult population and even the Daily Mail reaches only three per cent.

True, but that isn't how influence works, says Myerscough. "The media do not merely generate the political weather. They play a large part in creating the climate in which information is received and understood.

"A notion such as 'electability', to take the example at hand, is unthinkable without the media, which, in their every representation of a political leader, ask (and supply the authorities to help us decide) not only who is and is not electable, but what should be the criteria by which electability is judged."

Meanwhile, all the papers are reporting that earlier yesterday Corbyn observed the two-minutes silence for Armistice Day by joining hands in a circle with children at the Caterpillars pre-school in Crawley.

He also joined in the singing of Incy Wincy Spider, including performing the actions, reports the Daily Mail. Is the paper softening? Not a bit of it. "Observers noted that at times the 66-year-old appeared not to know all of the words," the Mail concludes.

Jeremy Corbyn: will he or won't he kneel for Queen?

11 November

Jeremy Corbyn is to be sworn in as a member of the Privy Council at Buckingham Palace today, which means a guessing game in the morning papers. Will he or won't he kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand, as convention dictates?

By chance, he is taking his oath of allegiance to the monarch – which includes a pledge to defend her against "all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates" – the day after he reportedly admonished his own shadow cabinet for a lack of discipline. Given Corbyn's own long history of defiance on the Labour backbenches, eyebrows were reportedly raised.

To kneel or not to kneel

Protocol dictates kneeling on a footstool and lightly kissing the Queen's hand, but it is not actually mandatory, says The Times. Only the taking of the 250-word oath is a must.

The Daily Telegraph believes the Palace is prepared to accommodate the Labour leader's republican views. "One Westminster source said the Queen did 'not want a constitutional crisis' by insisting on his genuflection, adding that the Queen accepts that 'Jeremy's republicanism is well known'," the paper reports.

This means Corbyn might get away without kneeling and with the lightest brush of his lips on the Queen's hand.

The Guardian offers the Tony Benn way out: the left-wing cabinet minister, a hero of Corbyn's, revealed in his diaries that he kissed his own thumb instead of the Queen's hand at his induction.

Will we ever know?

Possibly not, says The Telegraph, because any current privy councillors attending the monthly meeting won't be in the room when it happens. However, there's one other senior politician due to be inducted at the same time: will he or she keep their lips sealed?

Can we just get on with it?

After two months of will he/won't he speculation, even Conservatives among the 600 or so current privy councillors just want to get Corbyn's induction over with. Former Tory minister Sir Alan Duncan told The Telegraph: "I think the moment has come when we all should quite simply welcome him with good grace and good manners and stop mocking him."

What does it mean for Corbyn?

For a start, David Cameron will have to address him in the House of Commons as "My right honourable friend" rather than "My honourable friend". More controversially – because of his well-known pacifism and his support over the years for Irish republicans and Palestinian activists – it entitles Corbyn to see secret briefings regarding national security.

What about the shadow cabinet ticking-off?

Corbyn is reported to have told his shadow cabinet yesterday that they must show more collective discipline and clear any statements to the media through his office.

His comments are thought to have been directed in particular at shadow defence minister Maria Eagle, who said on Sunday that she understood General Sir Nicholas Houghton's worries about Corbyn becoming prime minister if he refuses under any circumstances to activate Britain's nuclear deterrent. The Guardian says Eagle's remarks "went down particularly badly with the leader's office".

Demanding loyalty puts Corbyn on the spot: voting records show that he defied the Labour whip 238 times during the New Labour era from 1997 to 2010. Though it should be noted that he was on the backbenches, never in the shadow cabinet.

Nevertheless, The Times quotes an anonymous Labour MP saying those present at yesterday's ticking-off were incredulous at "being lectured on these terms by the most undisciplined Labour MP for 30 years".

Jeremy Corbyn supporter tells Blairites: we won't lose heart

10 November

Jeremy Corbyn supporters "have promised to give moderate Labour MPs 'nightmares' if they threaten his leadership", The Sun reports today.

The paper has picked up on a Facebook posting by the Bromsgrove 'branch' of Momentum, the grassroots left-wing lobbying group that grew out of the successful Corbyn for Leader campaign.

The Sun claims that "key organisers of the controversial group" have written in "a vicious online rant" that "Labour will be unelectable until the PLP get behind Jeremy, and we don't mean with a knife in their hand."

The "menacing letter", as The Sun calls it, concludes: "We will vote for him again in numbers that will give you nightmares."

The post's origins are actually a little more complicated. It is a reposting of the second of two "open letters" to "disappointed Blairites" from the pro-Corbyn blogger Chelley Ryan, who describes herself as a mother of three, a grandmother of one and a Labour party member "committed to helping Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister".

In her most recent open letter, she expressed her frustration at the daily "briefings" she reads in the national press by anonymous Blairites who want Corbyn out.

"You are not really worried about Jeremy being unelectable, as you repeatedly claim," she writes. "You are more worried that he is [electable]. A general election victory for Labour under Jeremy would be your worst nightmare.

"It wouldn't just signal the turning of the page from the New Labour era – it would be the resounding slam of a door in your face."

She continues: "If you really did believe Jeremy to be unelectable, you'd stop with the briefing and the sniping, and offer him your support."

Ryan finishes with a message to those Labour moderates who might be hoping to make her and her fellow Corbyn supporters so despondent about his chances that they just lose heart.

"Well, good luck with that because we are not going anywhere. We are here for the long haul, till 2020 and beyond… If you try to overthrow Jeremy, we will vote for him again in numbers that will give you nightmares."

Ryan told The Week that she is one of the women who started the original petition calling for an anti-austerity candidate to stand in the Labour leadership race. She is not a member of Momentum: she wrote her open letters using the inclusive 'we' because, as a member of several pro-Corbyn Facebook groups, she is confident she speaks for other supporters.

"I'm just a very ordinary Labour member exasperated with all the stories in the press about plots and coups etc. I fear they will seriously hamper Labour's electoral chances. That's what compelled me to write both letters."