Well, it will either be him or his party, I guess: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bage...e/bl/ed/corbynssensiblesarestartingtopushback "Arriving home, a resident in a high-vis jacket confesses that he is Labour by habit and UKIP by preference. “He’s an idiot,” he adds matter-of-factly of Mr Corbyn: “his foreign policy is totally out of date.” A couple of houses down an old man in a vest declares himself a convinced socialist, a scion of a “strong army family” and utterly alienated by the unwillingness (as he sees it) of Mr Corbyn, a unilateral nuclear disarmer, to defend Britain" And if the Economist is too right wing, what about the Indie: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...n-looks-detached-over-terrorism-a6738156.html What very few will understand is Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the events in Paris. I write this with searing regret, because one of the qualities I have admired about him is his refusal to play dumb. He will not spout fatuous gibberish in populism’s cause, or be bullied into parroting nonsense by the confected hysteria of right-wing tabloids. He remains true to himself and the ideals he has held for half a century, which is splendid. It is even a touch heroic. Yet there is a borderline between rigorous authenticity and damaging self-caricature. If last week’s ruminations on the execution by drone of Jihadi John took him to its edge, Corbyn strode across it this week when asked if, as Prime Minister, he would operate a shoot-to-kill policy should the nightmare of Paris come to London. The answer is excruciating to quote. “I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general,” he told a BBC interviewer. “I think that is quite dangerous… You have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can… But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That’s got to be the priority.” The problem with this lies not in what he said, but in what he didn’t say first. No one sane thinks shooting battles desirable, or wouldn’t be thrilled if they could be prevented. Of course the long-term priority must be to tackle the root causes of this psychosis. All of that would have been fine had he begun his reply by addressing the short-term priority: what to do when people with Kalashnikovs in their hands and bombs around their waists are rampaging through a British city. To equivocate on that question is to commit suicide by media cop. The only beginning to that reply is on these lines: “Of course I would operate a shoot-to-kill policy – if, God forbid, it were needed. What do you think my policy would be? Send George Dixon in to greet them with a chirpy, ‘evenin’ all, now what’s all this palaver, then?’ and invite them down to the Dock Green nick for a cup of tea and a chat with the sergeant? You insult your audience’s intelligence by asking the question.” The specially lethal thing about the answer he gave instead is that it projected a sense of detachment. We do not need more politicians engaging in mortal combat with one another to castigate these killers as more evil, monstrous, vile, despicable, cowardly, etc, etc, than the last MP to bluster the identical self-dramatising verities three minutes earlier. Of those we have a surplus. And we certainly do need more politicians who are prepared to go beyond the purely visceral, by talking about the complexities; the need to deal not only with immediate threats to security, but with the causes of that psychosis.