Freddy Gray

At No 6 in our rundown of the Spectator's most-read pieces of 2015 is a piece that takes a surprising stance. Freddy Gray's November defence of Jeremy Corbyn as a 'shockingly steadfast' politician in contrast to David Cameron who 'makes up his foreign policy as he goes along' was hugely popular, and not just with the Corbynistas who support the Labour leader.  What strange people we Brits are. We spend years moaning that our politicians are cynical opportunists who don’t stand for anything. Then along comes an opposition leader who has principles — and appears to stick by them even when it makes him unpopular — and he is dismissed as a joke. Jeremy Corbyn has been ridiculed in recent days for the feebleness of his foreign policy.

The Christmas issue of The Spectator hits the streets soon; we have David Cameron, Justin Welby and Tony Blair. Blair first wrote for The Spectator in August 1979, four years before he became an MP. Thirty six years later, he is back in the magazine. In his first intervention since Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour Party leadership, the former Prime Minister does not mince his words. In his first sentence, he says: All wings of the Labour Party which support the notion of the Labour Party as a Party aspiring to govern, rather than as a fringe protest movement agree on the tragedy of the Labour Party’s current position. What they don't agree on is where Labour went right. In his Spectator article, Blair lays it out for the record.

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.

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.

Hats off to John McDonnell. We've all been fretting about how the Corbyn gang would cope against the media slick Tories. We all think that, despite the appeal of conviction politics, a shadow chancellor such as McDonnell will be eaten alive by the Tory front bench. John McDonnell's performance on BBC Question Time last night suggested otherwise. Question Time is a good test for politicians: they have to look and sound passionate while saying nothing much at all. McDonnell did exactly that, and with gusto. He masterfully shrugged off his 'joke' about killing Margaret Thatcher. When asked about his support for the IRA, he managed almost simultaneously to apologise and to take credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

[audioplayer src="http://rss.acast.com/viewfrom22/angelamerkel-sburden/media.mp3" title="Freddy Gray, Sebastian Payne and Owen Bennett discuss where Ukip went wrong" startat=685] Listen [/audioplayer]What’s happened to poor Ukip? Not so long ago, they seemed unstoppable. They were revolting on the right, terrifying the left and shaking up Westminster. The established parties tried sneering at them, smearing them, even copying them. Nothing worked. Then came the general election, the centre held, and Ukip seemed to fall apart. Farage failed to win his target seat in South Thanet, the focus of his whole campaign. He resigned, then farcically unresigned, three days later.

Is it too cynical to say that the tributes paid to Charles Kennedy in the House of Commons yesterday were excessive, maudlin, and more than a bit silly? Is it pompous to say that the House of Commons should be a chamber for matters of state, not a safe space for sharing grief? A former party leader’s death should be acknowledged in the House of Commons, but did we need 27 tributes? At Prime Minister Questions, there were 4 brief speeches about Kennedy, which seemed about right. In the later session, which lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes, there were 23. Much of the encomium for Kennedy was directed at the gallery, where his former wife and 10-year-old son Donald stood.