With Jeremy’s contract up for renewal, let’s review his performance as leader.

We appointed him almost a year ago. Some members were anxious about his lack of even mid-level experience, but others were impressed by his promise of a different approach. In the end, a majority agreed to give Jeremy a try.

Recruitment

Jeremy has been remarkably good at attracting new party members. He has struck a chord with hundreds of thousands of people, and he inspires strong loyalty in these supporters.

Public opinion

Unfortunately, Jeremy’s appeal has not carried across to the wider public. Almost all the evidence shows that Labour is now (and indeed was before the start of the leadership challenge) performing worse than under Ed Miliband:

voting intention polls

leader satisfaction ratings

economic competence ratings

Westminster byelections

English council elections

Welsh Assembly elections

Scottish Parliament elections

The one big improvement was the London mayoralty. But there’s no sign this gain was down to a ‘Corbyn effect’: Sadiq Khan refused to campaign with Jeremy and publicly criticised him; Sadiq’s poll ratings in London were far higher than Jeremy’s; and our vote in the London Assembly election did not rise. The main factor that swung the mayoralty back to Labour was that the Tories no longer had their superstar, Boris Johnson.

None of these pieces of evidence can tell us the next general election result — but, together, they strongly suggest we face a defeat even bigger than that of 2015.

Parliament

Jeremy has tried a refreshing new approach to PMQs: asking questions from the public is a nice way to show he’s on their side.

But his technique has been lacking in follow-up. Too often, the PM has given a weak answer — but instead of pressing the point, Jeremy has simply moved on to the next question on his list. This was understandable when he started, but he has made little progress. Reading out emails is easy, but as leader of the opposition Jeremy needs to be able to prepare a line of interrogation and think on his feet.

Most recently — at Theresa May’s debut — he asked six questions on six topics. His failure to pursue any of them gave May an easy ride. At one point he did briefly note that she had ducked a question, but then he threw away the chance to pursue it and returned to his script.

Influence on policy

Labour has had some successes in changing government policy this year, but it’s hard to establish how much credit Jeremy himself deserves.

Many of the government’s defeats have been in the Lords, where the Labour team operate largely independently of his Commons leadership. Angela Smith, our Lords leader, says it is “galling” to see Jeremy claim credit for wins on the trade union bill, the housing bill and tax credit cuts when he “wasn’t involved in the strategy or tactics” and didn’t attend any of the relevant meetings.

The biggest area where Jeremy might have had an influence was the EU referendum.

There is no definitive count of how many pro-remain events he did, but the number would have been higher if he hadn’t gone on holiday to Portugal halfway through the campaign. And more important than the number was the tone and content: his support for the EU seemed reluctant.

He rejected offers to present a united front with other party leaders, refusing to share a platform with Tories. True, they’re a bad government and we rightly oppose them. But they’re not wrong about everything. In this case a powerful message could have been sent by putting aside party politics.

What is extraordinary is that Jeremy even attacked and undermined the central plank of the remain campaign — the economic risks of leaving — simply because it was an argument George Osborne had been making.

And Labour remain campaigners report that Jeremy’s office repeatedly frustrated their efforts to get him more prominently and effectively involved.

Feedback from his colleagues

Jeremy has faced an unprecedented vote of no confidence from his MPs and mass resignations from his front bench. His team is threadbare. We cannot provide effective opposition, let alone offer ourselves as an alternative government, without convincingly resolving this. And it’s hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs could now convincingly say they do have confidence in him. Such obvious dishonesty would be ridiculed.

Too many of Jeremy’s colleagues have testified he is extremely hard to work with and unable to fulfil his duties as leader. For example:

Thangam Debbonaire was mistakenly announced as shadow arts minister while undergoing chemotherapy. There followed weeks of avoidance on Jeremy’s part, and Thangam started working on a job she didn’t really have, while trying to get her leader to tell her where she stood.

It was Chi Onwurah, former shadow culture minister, who eventually had half of her job given to Thangam — a confusion that meant a lot of her work on libraries went to waste.

Sharon Hodgson, former shadow minister for children, spent months on a policy review. Then an unexpected announcement in the same area by John McDonnell superseded her work. After John failed to return her calls, Sharon contacted Jeremy’s office; she was promised that he would get back to her. He didn’t.

Lilian Greenwood, former shadow transport secretary, worked with Jeremy to plan the January campaign on rail fares. Then Jeremy chose that morning, without notice, to start a reshuffle. The campaign sank without trace.

Neale Coleman, Jeremy’s former chief of staff, says Jeremy didn’t prioritise organisation and teamwork. He says: “All too often the response to difficult issues that should have been resolved collectively and cooperatively was not to engage but retreat to the bunker.”

A clear, sad picture emerges from these accounts and others: Jeremy has been unable to adapt to the demands of his job.

Politics is about more than values and speeches and marches. It is also about planning and collaboration and decision-making. Jeremy shows no aptitude for the professional side of politics — the side that turns values into achievements.

Party management

Away from parliament, Jeremy’s managerial skills are no better. At the NEC meeting that planned the leadership election, he stayed until he had established that he wouldn’t need nominations from MPs — and then left. There were still important matters to decide, as he knew, including the controversial cut-off date, which disenfranchised so many new members.

Jeremy later attacked this decision, but when he could have done something to influence it, he shirked his responsibility in favour of self-promotion.

He left the building, made a short statement to the media and cheering supporters, then spent time shaking hands, chatting and posing for selfies. After that, he went to a rally for his re-election campaign.

Instead of doing his job, he went to tell his supporters how much he deserved to keep it.

Jeremy has also failed to ease the fractious mood of the party. Meetings have been suspended, allegations of abuse and intimidation are rife, and the whiff of anti-Semitism around the fringes has not been dispelled.

44 female Labour MPs wrote to him with concerns about bullying and threats from some of his supporters. They warned of “a culture of hatred and division” and called for “swift and tangible action”.

No such action happened. When later asked whether nastiness in the party had increased, Jeremy said: “No. I am not sure it has. I know that I have received more abuse than I ever used to. But then maybe I’m better known these days. But I receive more abuse than anybody else.”

He added: “The best way of dealing with abuse is: ignore it.”

Ignoring abuse is a legitimate personal choice. But for a leader to say this, in the current toxic atmosphere, was irresponsible and negligent.

A recent occasion when Jeremy took his own advice was the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s anti-Semitism report. A Momentum activist, Marc Wadsworth, asked a question but prefaced it with an unconnected claim that Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish Labour MP, was “working hand-in-hand” with the Telegraph. There were loud protests from the audience, and Ruth herself walked out.

Perhaps Wadsworth didn’t know Ruth was Jewish and didn’t intend to play the “Jews control the media” trope. But Jeremy knew she was Jewish, and on this of all occasions he should have been alert to any such insinuation and keen to show that he would not tolerate it.

He ignored it. He answered Wadsworth’s question as if nothing untoward had occurred. (The two men turn out to be on friendly terms. Leaving the event, they were caught on camera chatting and laughing.)

Overall, Jeremy seems not just unable but unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities involved in leading a major political party.

Media handling

On top of Jeremy’s personal awkwardness with the media, he and his team routinely make foolish, incompetent and embarrassing decisions about dealing with the media, and they foster a bunker mentality in which enemies are seen everywhere.

Labour leaders face an uphill battle to get fair coverage. But that’s a reason to fight hard to climb the hill, not to sit and sulk at the bottom. Rallies and hashtags cannot substitute for a clear message on TV and in the press.

Dealing with controversies

From Jeremy’s decades in politics, there are many controversies that the Tories and their media allies will exploit ferociously come the next election. We have to be able to neutralise these.

Jeremy has had some recent chances to address his past, but he has neither explained nor disowned his actions convincingly.

Some examples:

Support for the IRA

Two weeks after the 1984 Brighton bombing that killed five (including a Tory MP) and injured many more, Jeremy welcomed two convicted IRA bombers as his guests at Parliament. He denied that this might be insensitive.

He later invited Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams to Parliament. They walked around town and photos of them together were made public.

Over the years, he attended many pro-IRA events. At one, in 1987, he stood to honour IRA gunmen who had been killed in an attack on a police station, and said: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”

In an interview last year, he was repeatedly asked to condemn the IRA. He couldn’t bring himself to do it.

He justified his record by saying he was promoting dialogue and a political process. But this is unconvincing: Jeremy opposed compromise. He could have backed the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, an important step to improve relations between the two governments. Instead, he spoke and voted against it because it accepted the border. He held out, with the IRA, for a united Ireland that everyone knew the North would never vote for.

IRA talks with the government had a clear purpose and would eventually lead towards a ceasefire. IRA talks with Jeremy, an obscure opposition backbencher, were simply a meeting of minds.

He has always wanted a united Ireland. And while it’s implausible to suggest he approved of the IRA’s terrorism, it’s equally implausible to deny he tolerated it. The best interpretation is that he saw it — and still sees it — as a regrettable but legitimate campaign of resistance to imperialism. He offered moral support and help promoting their cause among the British left.

Jeremy lent the IRA his credibility as an MP. They never gave it back.

Praise for Hamas

In 2009, Jeremy invited representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah to Parliament, although Hamas couldn’t come. He said it was his “pleasure and honour” to host the event, calling both groups his “friends”.

Asked about it this July, he said this was “inclusive language used in order to bring people together to promote a dialogue and a peace process”, and that with hindsight, he regrets those particular words. And perhaps they were just misjudged diplomatic courtesies.

But back in 2009 he had also described Hamas as “dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region”. This went well beyond courtesy: it was an endorsement, a paean of praise (and utterly untrue).

Even if Jeremy was lying through his teeth to impress Hamas — and that seems unlike him — this was a public statement on camera. Such things have propaganda value.

Jeremy did manage to meet a Hamas supporter in 2011, though. He invited to Parliament Raed Salah, who had served one prison sentence for funding Hamas and another for assaulting a police officer. After arriving in the UK, Salah was put under house arrest, so Jeremy went to visit him.

In 2001, Salah had said that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy. In 2007, he spread the “blood libel” that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood in rituals.

But Jeremy, sitting next to him, called him “a very honoured citizen” with “a voice that must be heard”. He repeated his invitation to Parliament and promised “a very warm welcome”. He concluded: “I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it.”

Watch the video. Even Salah looks embarrassed at this gushing flattery.

How Jeremy identified Salah as a partner for peace is unclear. It’s also unclear, as with Northern Ireland, what the Corbyn Middle East Peace Process consisted of, beyond getting together with violent anti-Semites and chatting about how bad Israel is.

Questioned about it this year, Jeremy said that when talking to Salah, “I said to him that I absolutely condemn any form of racism,” which seems to be becoming a regular catchphrase. When asked whether he would invite Salah back, he said: “No, I don’t think so, but he’s not coming back, either.”

This is hardly a compelling account of how a decent but naive man realised his mistake and vowed to improve his judgement.

And many more…

A few of Jeremy’s other controversies:

He was paid for appearances on the Iranian state propaganda channel Press TV from 2009 to 2012, as the Westerner who opposes the West while declining to speak uncomfortable truths to the power of his hosts. He continued this relationship even after Press TV was banned in the UK for filming and broadcasting the torture-induced confession of a journalist.

In 2004, he denied the Kosovo genocide.

He has often sung the praises of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, ignoring the widespread abuse of human rights and curtailments of civil liberties.

He called the Falklands war “a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business”. Nowadays, he wants a power-sharing deal with Argentina, against the wishes of the islanders.

There’s a lot here that will trouble many people, including Labour voters. People may conclude that Jeremy, despite his benevolent manner, is morally compromised and so is the party that endorses him. If we choose to keep him as leader, our opponents will call us a party of terrorist sympathisers and apologists for oppression. We might abhor such a charge, but on strict factual grounds we could not wholly refute it.

Conclusion and recommendation

Jeremy is clearly not up to the job. While having some appeal as a figurehead, in almost all other respects he is failing. His appointment was the biggest promotion in party history. It was a gamble, and sadly it has not paid off.

It would have been better if he had stepped down, but he seems unable to accept the evidence of his shortcomings. So the decision is ours.

If we keep him in post, the sound of cheering at rallies will continue to drown out the crumbling of our credibility and effectiveness. Labour will suffer at the ballot box and Britain will suffer from a Tory government with a much bigger majority.

We must replace this ineffectual and tainted leader if we want to have any chance of achieving anything.

�� }�-]�#