Labour party

Labour appears to be obsessed with its image on social media. If the general election result taught us anything, it’s that opinions on Twitter and Facebook do not reflect the whole country. Yet at a recent meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee, a decision was taken to create guidelines for its members using social media. Peter Willsman, a member of the NEC, reports on the Grassroots Labour blog: ‘Several NEC members raised the issue of the very harmful leaks to the media and the very damaging way in which social media is being used. It was agreed that we need to develop a Labour Party Code of Conduct in relation to the use of social media.’ So, this is how the New Politics manifests itself.

Pro-intervention Labour MPs are increasingly confident that they will help David Cameron get a majority for British military action against Islamic State in Syria. They also believe that the amount of support for such action will bring what one frontbencher describes as a ‘point of reckoning’ and another describes as a ‘turning point for the party’. This is because Corbyn is going to have to concede that he must give the Labour Shadow Cabinet a free vote on the matter, otherwise there will be a ‘bloodbath’, sources warn. A number of Shadow Cabinet members are minded to vote in favour of action if Cameron presents a sufficiently well-thought-out plan. And they would expect a free vote, or else.

David Cameron will be making the case for bombing Syria in the Commons later this week and all eyes are on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour to see if they supports his proposals. On the Today programme, the shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle summed up the party’s current position as we wait and see: ‘We are in a position in which we will make a decision after the Prime Minister puts forward his rationale – that is the sensible way of doing it and we will do that.

When Jeremy Corbyn says it is better to bring people to trial than to shoot them, he is right. So one might feel a little sorry for him as the critics attack his reaction to the Paris events. But in fact the critics are correct, for the wrong reason. It is not Mr Corbyn’s concern for restraint and due process which are the problem. It is the question of where his sympathies really lie, of what story he thinks all these things tell. Every single time that a terrorist act is committed (unless, of course, it be a right-wing one, like that of Anders Breivik), Mr Corbyn locates the ill as deriving from the behaviour of the West, especially the United States and Britain (and, where relevant, Israel).

Yesterday Ken Livingstone found himself at the centre of a media storm after he suggested that Kevan Jones -- a Labour MP with a history of depression -- required psychiatric help, after he dared to question Livingstone's appointment as co-chair on Labour's defence policy review. As Jones -- along with Jeremy Corbyn -- called on Livingstone to apologise, a series of media appearances followed where he did no such thing. At first he said Jones should 'get over it', later explaining he was just standing up for himself as any self-respecting south London lad would. Eventually a grovelling statement appeared on Livingstone's Twitter account where he apologised 'unreservedly'.

[audioplayer src="http://rss.acast.com/viewfrom22/parisattacksaftermath/media.mp3" title="Nick Cohen and Freddy Gray discuss whether Jeremy Corbyn dislikes the West" startat=42] Listen [/audioplayer]Before the bodies in Paris’s restaurants were cold, Jeremy Corbyn’s Stop the War Coalition knew who the real villains were — and they were not the Islamists who massacred civilians. ‘Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East’ ran a headline on its site. The article went on to say that the consequence of the West’s ‘decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention’.

Last night's PLP meeting proved to be a lively affair as Jeremy Corbyn was turned on by members of the Labour party over his ‘shoot to kill’ comments. As Mr S's colleague Sebastian Payne reports, Corbyn was then ‘shouted down’ by MPs for his stance on military action and Syria. So where was the Labour leader's primary cheerleader Diane Abbott while all this was going on? Well Abbott, who has won herself the nickname Madame Mao since her close friend – and rumoured former lover – was elected, was rather distracted at the event.

There is nothing wrong with Jeremy Corbyn saying he 'isn't happy' with a shoot-to-kill policy. On the contrary, it shows once again that he is a man of principle. We may not agree with, or like, his principles -- but can we at least recognise that, unlike his opponents, he is not bending to the national mood? He is not willing to ditch his integrity in order to ease the public's fear and sate our lust for a violent response to terror. For Corbyn's haters on the Labour right, his position proves once again that he is not a 'serious' person. For one of his shadow cabinet, his position even makes him a 'f---ing disgrace' Why? Corbyn may well be right. It's certainly not disgraceful to oppose a policy of legal killing.

Jeremy Corbyn’s controversial comments questioning the use of shoot to kill in terrorist attacks has led to a whole new round of criticisms — not least from his own MPs.