James Forsyth

Jeremy Corbyn has taken to the Financial Times, the newspaper of big business, to say that Labour will support Britain staying in the EU whatever happens in the renegotiation. This is a reversal of Corbyn’s previous view that such a position was equivalent to giving David Cameron a blank cheque to negotiate away social and environmental ‘protections’. But there is a twist. Corbyn says that if Cameron does win changes in these areas, Labour will commit to reversing them if it wins the next election. Now, I think this could pose a problem for the In campaign because it confirms that the settlement that is being put to the electorate is not permanent, that there could be more integration in the near future.

At the end of PMQs today, David Cameron turned to George Osborne and said, ‘Well, that was a lot less stressful.’ I think this conclusively answers the question of whether or not Cameron is worried by Jeremy Corbyn’s PMQs technique of reading out questions that the public have sent in. Although, to be fair, I hear that Cameron was impressed by how calm Corbyn was today, especially considering that it was not only his PMQs debut but his  first ever appearance at the despatch box. The Prime Minister remarked afterwards that the Labour leader’s hands weren’t even shaking as he asked his questions.

Labour MPs are in no mood to fake it. At Jeremy Corbyn’s first meeting with the Parliamentary Labour Party, there was no cheer as he entered the room, no raucous applause when he stood up to speak. Instead, all that could be heard outside in the corridor was a few rounds of mild, polite applause. For a new leader, this is quite unprecedented. Corbyn’s message was that he had three priorities as leader: housing, the elections in Scotland and Wales next year and a Labour government in 2020. He also tried to stress that he wanted to be an inclusive leader, emphasising that he didn’t want any change to party selection rules. In an attempt to reassure MPs, he said that Labour under him would not be against individual achievement and aspiration.

No one in the hall was in any doubt about the result, the only thing in question was the scale of Jeremy Corbyn’s victory. In the end it was overwhelming, 59.5 per cent on the first round. Corbyn led in every single section and the scale of his triumph will make it very hard for the Parliamentary Labour Party to move against him even in the medium term. Though, large numbers of the Labour figures here today are making no effort to hide their dismay at the result. Corbyn’s victory speech, delivered without a tie, was no move to the centre. It did contain some unifying themes, his tribute to Liz Kendall for standing up for what she believes in, but it was largely left-wing boiler plate.

The political crisis in Northern Ireland has just become much more serious. Peter Robinson has stepped down as first minister and pulled all but one DUP Minister out of the executive. This means that there is now just one Unionist as part of the government there. Robinson’s aim is to make the UK government suspend Stormont. This crisis has been caused by the IRA’s continuing activities. Last month, the Police Service of Northern Ireland declared that the Provisional IRA was involved in the murder of Kevin McGuigan. This week, Sinn Fein’s northern chairman Bobby Storey was one of three republicans arrested for questioning in connection with the matter. Now, Sinn Fein denies that the IRA exists anymore.

PMQs today was not the usual Punch and Judy show. Rather it was dominated by a serious exchange between Harman and Cameron about what to do about the refugee crisis. Cameron, having paid generous tribute to Harman, set out the thinking behind the government’s position far more clearly than he had on Monday. Now, I suspect that PMQs will be very much back to its old self with the debut of the new Labour leader next week. But what was refreshing about today’s session was that Harman and Cameron were disagreeing with each other and arguing, but just without the raised voices or insults. The SNP’s Angus Robertson used his two questions to raise the issue of drone strikes.

David Cameron’s statement that Britain will take 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this parliament was overshadowed by his announcement that an RAF drone had killed two British ISIL fighters in Syria in August. Cameron said that that Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin had been killed in a lawful act of ‘self-defence’ as they were planning and encouraging terrorist attacks in Britain. He stressed that this was a targeted action and that he would come back to the House of Commons to seek permission for more generalised action in Syria; the Commons voted against military action there in 2013. Now, it is hard to think of many more serious matters than the killing of a British citizens by the British state.

Until recently, the Tory leadership has been reluctant to plan how they would respond to a Corbyn-led Labour party. They just couldn’t believe that Labour were actually going to elect him. At the Cabinet’s pre-holiday get together at Chequers, the conversation about how to take on the new Labour leader was premised on the idea that either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would win. But now the Tories are working out how they would tackle Corbyn. (Though, two Cabinet Ministers have told me this week that they expect Cooper to pip Corbyn at the post). The Tory leadership is keen to avoid sounding triumphalist about the prospect of facing the MP for Islington North.

A Jeremy Corbyn victory in the Labour leadership race now seems like a racing certainty. The consequences of this for Labour have been much discussed but in the magazine this week, I look at what it would mean for the Tories. The first, and most obvious, thing to say is that it would make 2020 the Tories’ election to lose — and they would have to make an epoch defining mistake to do so. But some Tories are worried about the prospect of a Corbyn victory. This isn’t just because they fear that bad opposition leads to bad government. But because they fret that Cameron and Osborne’s response to it will be to tack hard to the centre to try and pick up those voters disillusioned by Labour’s lurch to the left.

No one can deny that the SNP has made Westminster pay more attention to Scotland. Five years ago, it was surprising—and, in many ways, shocking—how uninformed most MPs were of what was happening in Scottish politics. That is one of the reasons why the independence referendum was treated as a second-order issue - until people realised quite how close it was going to be. But that has all changed now with the 56 SNP MPs making their presence felt in the Chamber. This is particularly true of Downing Street because with Angus Robertson having two questions at PMQs each week, David Cameron—who prepares assiduously for these sessions—needs to know what is making news in Scotland and what the record of the SNP government up there is on various issues.

When I heard John Prescott was going on the Today programme, I must admit that I expected him to urge Labour members to be sensible — and stop this damaging flirtation with Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-left views. But he didn’t. Instead, Prescott attacked those attacking Corbyn — including his old boss Tony Blair — and said it wouldn’t be a disaster if Labour did elect Corbyn. It was a bizarre performance and a missed opportunity. For there is an urgent, and increasingly desperate, need for someone who is trusted by Labour grassroots to explain to them just how damaging it would be for the party and its prospects to elect Corbyn. Yet at the moment, no one seems to want to step forward to fulfil this role.