Jeremy corbyn

Parliament is always in a way a comedy of vanity. Yesterday it was a narcissistic farce. Our elected representatives spent ten hours making the same unconvincing points over and over again. The standard of speaking was poor because nobody had much worth saying. The pro-bombers kept arguing that we had to stand with our allies, and that Isis was horrid. The anti-bombers urged us not to make another tragic mistake in the Middle East. And everybody had to say how they felt personally — as if personal feelings are more important than right or wrong. Yet all the MPs knew deep down that Britain's intervention in the Syrian conflict would be so small-scale as to be pointless.

[audioplayer src="http://rss.acast.com/viewfrom22/thegreendelusion/media.mp3" title="James Forsyth and Fraser Nelson discuss Labour's civil war over Syria airstrikes" startat=700] Listen [/audioplayer]It makes no sense for Britain to bomb Islamic State in Iraq but not Syria. Attacking a group that does not respect international borders on only one side of a border makes no strategic or military sense. From the Prime Minister down, government ministers are acutely aware of this absurdity. That is why they have been so keen to gain the Commons’ permission to extend the strikes to Syria. Yet this week Westminster has been gripped, not by the strategic case for taking the fight to Islamic State in Syria, but by the effect that this debate has had on the Labour party.

Jeremy Corbyn is a rarity among politicians. All his enemies are on his own side. For the Tories, Ukip and the SNP, Corbyn is a dream made real. They could not love him more. As the riotous scenes at the shadow cabinet and parliamentary Labour party meetings this week showed, his colleagues see Corbyn and John McDonnell as modern Leninists who are mobilising their cadres to purge all dissidents from the party. Conversations with Corbyn’s aides show a gentler side to the new regime, however. They suggest the Corbynistas are unlikely to be able to control Labour MPs when they can barely control themselves. ‘Chaos’ was the word that came up most often, followed by ‘panic’ and ‘unforced errors’. Corbyn’s staffers were working 12-hour days.

MPs are currently in a cross-party briefing with a number of Cabinet Ministers about tomorrow’s vote on Syria. The Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the International Development Secretary are leading the briefing. Number 10 is very keen to show that MPs have had every opportunity to ask questions, with the Prime Minister’s statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review last Monday referring to the need for action, as well as his statement in the House on Thursday on his plan for British involvement in air strikes. In that second session, he took questions from 103 MPs.

First things first: there is no force in Heaven or on Earth that could induce me to vote for Jeremy Corbyn and his sad brand of sixth-former state socialism. In fact, as someone who believes in freedom and growth, the idea of ever giving my beloved ballot to the illiberal, eco-miserabilist Labour Party, regardless of who’s leading it, fills me with horror. Or is it mirth? It’s one or the other. And yet, despite my Corbynphobia, and my humane desire to see dying Labourism put out of its misery, I increasingly find myself shaking my head in something like fury at Corbyn’s Labour critics. They accuse him of destroying their party. Which is both chronologically and factually wrong.

Tomorrow, Labour will try out something curious during the Commons debate on airstrikes in Syria. The opposition side of the debate will be opened by Jeremy Corbyn, who will argue against airstrikes, and later closed by Hilary Benn, who will make the case for them. This may sound all very dynamic and different but there is a simple and important question ordinary folks will be wondering: what is Labour's policy on Syrian airstrikes?