PMQs in Review: How have the government and opposition fared in Corbyn's first year?

The strike of Twelve on Wednesdays heralds the beginning of PMQs, a contest it is hard to say that progressives have been winning over the past six years.

Since Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader last autumn, PMQs has had an extra layer of attention paid to it. After Corbyn offered a new politics, kinder and more reasonable, commentators wondered at how that could be translated to the hostile cauldron of PMQs.

On the whole the answer has been a barrage of criticism of Corbyn's performances opposite David Cameron. At the top of the list has been his apparent lack of aggression and persistence, that has been accused of letting Cameron's ministry off lightly. It has also been said that there has been a simple lack of professional preparedness (Hazarika, 2016).

Part of Corbyn's problem, at least initially, was an unfocussed approach, where each question would press on a different subject. While that approach allowed for the covering of more ground, it also meant that ground was covered more thinly - or occasionally not at all in the face of a persistently aggressive Cameron, who frequently turned the format upside down by firing questions of his own back.

Others who stepped up to lead PMQs received a warmer response from critics. David Cameron is considered almost universally to have PMQs firmly in his grasp and to hold a position of confident control over the proceedings that makes life difficult for any opponent - Ed Miliband just as much as Jeremy Corbyn.

Cameron's and Corbyn's deputies George Osborne and Angela Eagle also had chances to take on PMQs. Osborne comes from the same PMQs school as Cameron, so his confidence comes with little surprise. But Angela Eagle's turn standing in for Corbyn had to be considered within the context of Labour MPs dissatisfaction with Corbyn.

Angela Eagle herself was a competent performer. Yet she also received much better support from her own benches than Corbyn is often afforded, which can only have made life easier. It also clearly suited the Commons that Eagle also went back to the old bantering approach.

While some of Corbyn's difficulties might be put down to his own flaws, there where early innovations. The use of letters from members of the public to add a new dimension to a question, which might force the PM to answer more straightly - something much needed within the format.

And that format itself aught to carry some of the blame. The Prime Minister is under no real obligation to give straight and clear answers to questions and there is no arbiter of the factual accuracy, relevance or suitability of an answer. It is left to the questioner to persist - a privilege that only two MPs are afforded.

Could changes to the format help? First Minister's Questions at Holyrood adopted a new longer format this year, giving more time to press for detail, and all of its opposition party leaders get a chance to ask a couple of questions. But whether adapting to that format or more likely remaining within the current format, co-operation between opposition MPs to coordinate questions alone - to hit a consistent tone and plant follow ups - would at least go some way, in the short term, to forcing the PM to give more specific answers.

September, when the recess ends, will see the new Conservative leader Theresa May return for her second appearance - and presumably further ones - but it isn't yet settled who her opponent will be. Whoever prevails in the Labour leadership election has to look back seriously and methodically at Corbyn's first year as opposition leader.

Regardless of whether it has been the fault of Corbyn or not, the opposition has struggled to get its message out and PMQs is one of the few opportunities for free, unfiltered, media coverage. The next leader of the Labour Party, as effective leader of the opposition to the government, needs to have a clear answer to the question: How can we make best use of those six questions and thirty minutes?

Labour Leadership Contest: Corbyn's year in charge has already changed Labour's policy debate, but will it be enough to heal the rift?

Corbyn speaking, just a month after his election, to a crowd of ten thousand people - inside and outside - at Manchester Cathedral, for a Communication Workers Union event.

The Labour leadership contest got under way in earnest on Thursday as Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign. Evoking the memory of Beveridge, in his speech he promised to lead Labour towards ending the 'five greats evils' of our times (BBC, 2016): inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

Having seen off Angela Eagle in the nominations race, Owen Smith has also stepped up his campaign (Asthana & Elgot, 2016). Unlike Corbyn, who has a - not really of his own making - hostile relationship with the media, Owen Smith is actively courting the media, making TV appearance after TV appearance to increase his exposure amongst audiences who probably don't know who he is.

Smith's key line through these appearances has been to try and present himself as able to be the intermediary between the radical membership and the more pragmatic party. He has promised to be as radical as Corbyn, but more competent at making the practical pitch to the wider country (BBC, 2016{2}).

Owen Smith, in the event of his campaign being victorious, has even pitched a job for Corbyn, offering him the position of Party President - though the proposition was rejected by Corbyn as being the equivalent to a 'Director of Football' (BBC, 2016{3}).

The launch of Corbyn's leadership defence had the appearance of an act of defiance (Sparrow, 2016). Affording no time to his detractors and opponents, he focussed instead on making a Beveridge-esque promise to combat the five great evils and called for Labour MPs to take the hand of friendship, get behind the party and work together.

In fact, the Labour leadership campaign may yet be beneficial for Corbyn. It might well give Corbyn the platform to calmly propose and discuss policy that his leadership so far failed to - conducted as it has been under a concessionless, constant barrage, of media negativity (Cammaert, 2016).

However, his support will be under strain, potentially squeezed by a candidate like Smith - if he can put his message across - with the polls showing trade union members have become less enthusiastic about Corbyn's leadership (MacAskill, 2016).

Smith has already made some promises. The set piece of which was a promise to boost public investment, with a £200bn New Deal for Britain (Edwards, 2016). The proposal has already enthused some Labour MPs, such as Louise Haigh who said she was excited to see anti-austerity turned into practical proposals.

There was a bit of oneupmanship to the campaign though, when a day later Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell announced a £500bn investment plan (Pope, 2016). McDonnell's plan included a National Investment Bank, to have regional sub-sects, for instance a Bank of the North, to manage investment to local needs.

Whatever the variations, both candidates are though confirming support for ending austerity with a big increase in public investment - a move that sits well with what the experts are arguing that the British economy sorely needs to move forward (Blanchflower, 2016; Elliott, 2016).

That alignment between Labour's Left and Right, with economists, is a good sign for the Left, signalling that thinking has shifted away from austerity - making conditions perhaps somewhat easier for those on the Left friendly to public spending.

It might also be a sign that Corbyn supporters, and those on the Left wing of the party that have long felt ignored, even an Owen Smith win in the leadership contest will be far from a defeat to the hated Blairites. Corbyn and his supporters have changed the party and Smith's approach has proved that - they can't ignore the Left anymore.

Contained within the pitch Owen Smith is making is an acknowledgement of the impact that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, who put him into the leadership, have had on the party. Their values cannot be ignored.

And yet, tensions remain high. Claims of abuse have come from both sides, of which there is plenty, but those valid claims are undermined at times by claims of abuse by thin-skinned public figures who, earnestly or cynically, mistake criticism for something less legitimate (BBC, 2016{4}).

The question that provokes is whether the breach had already been widened too much. Though concessions are being made in terms of tone and policy, if Corbyn doesn't retain the leadership - and even if he does - the hostility of the party's establishment to the Left still really doesn't make it look, however, like the long term future of the Corbynistas, and their well wishers, is in the Labour Party.

Proportional representation cannot come soon enough.

Trident divides the parties and even the countries of the UK. Will today's vote do anything to settle the matter?

Poseidon, trident in hand, looks down on Glasgow from atop the Clydeport Building. Just twenty five miles away is the base for the UK's Trident nuclear submarine programme. Photograph: Clydeport Building by Skin-UBX (License) (Cropped)

In virtually his last public act as Prime Minister, David Cameron set today for a Commons debate on whether the government should renew the Trident nuclear submarine programme (BBC, 2016). For the Conservatives, now under Theresa May's leadership, this should be the ideal issue - the Tories are united in their position and Labour are fragmented (Smith, 2016).

Trident certainly underlines the fundamental problem facing Labour at the moment. Between the different wings of the party, there is little common ground. Today, Labour will approach that divide by giving its MPs a free vote, considering nuclear weapons a matter of conscience.

Yet what that also means is that while the Conservatives can rebuild unity after the EU referendum on issues such as this and the SNP is unanimous and clear in its opposition to the programme (BBC, 2016{2}), Labour will stumble through another issue without a clear consensus on a position.

There have been efforts at proposing a common approach. One proposal from Paul Mason, journalist and part of the pro-Corbyn camp, is to accept renewal as the strategic element of a shift away from disastrous expeditionary warfare (Mason, 2016). Mason argues that with the Nuclear deterrent, held with a clear posture, 'keeping the peace' strategically and conventional forces redeployed to the NATO mission to safeguard Eastern Europe against an erratic Russia, the party can bury the issue, ending that particular cause for internal strife, and focus on the issues that people really care about - like the NHS.

Yet, especially at a time of open internal warfare for Labour - aimed without reservation or equivocation at Jeremy Corbyn - it is unlikely that Corbyn would be willing to compromise on an issue such as this, so fundamental to his own political identity that saw him resoundingly elected just nine months ago.

Beyond the issues it exposes for the Labour Party, Trident raises other important questions.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Scotland was shown to be distinct from England in its attitude towards the European Union. While the Conservatives see safety in the unity of their party on the Trident issue, it is a safety on that ground alone. On her accession to Prime Minister, Theresa May stated that her highest priority is the Union (Hill, 2016), yet there are few issues that could help further provoke the break up of the United Kingdom than Trident.

Currently in its third consecutive term of government at Holyrood and holding almost all Westminster seats for Scotland, the SNP completely opposes nuclear weapons and is particularly offended that they are based in Scotland (BBC, 2016{3}). Though no serious effort has been made to actually move the base for Trident, options for prospective alternatives include moving the programme to Wales (Chakelian, 2015).

Thanks to England voting to leave the EU and the Tories inflaming that divide with Trident, the question of Scottish Independence is firmly back on the agenda. While the Tories might heal their own rifts, they do so only by opening other wounds further.

Then there is the question of fiscal priorities. A renewal for Trident is a £31bn investment (Morris, 2015), at least, at a time of long term austerity - which has seen devastating cuts to public services and desperately needed public investment - and the economy taking a clear hit from Brexit.

Theresa May has already seemingly rolled back on George Osborne's commitment to a government budget surplus and Labour's current and prospective leaderships are both pledging vast amounts of economy-kickstarting public investment (Pope, 2016; Edwards, 2016).

In that environment, any spending decision has to be weighed carefully. And amongst the matters to be considered is the fact that there are something like 15,000 jobs depend upon the maintenance of the nuclear defence industry, a matter no politician is going to put lightly aside.

Which brings us last, but absolutely not least, to the question of a nuclear deterrent itself. To make a spending decision about a weapon system requires knowing if it even has a purpose.

So does it have a role to play? On one level, a nuclear deterrent is a huge investment in a weapon that is, hopefully, by intention and design never to be used. Analysts have argued that deterrence still has a strategic role to play - with concern over the renewed aggression of Russia cited in most arguments (BBC, 2016{4}; Mason, 2016).

The fact that no sane leaders of a progressive movement could, in good conscience, commit the appalling war crime of condemning tens, evens hundreds, of thousands to a nuclear death, not even in retaliation, seems to be treated as beside the point. For his honesty on the matter, Corbyn was condemned. But ignoring the facts as inexpedient serves no one.

Whatever tactical political advantage today's vote offers the Conservatives, through a show of internal unity and exposing their opponent's divisions, it isn't going to settle this issue. It will only drive Scotland further away, wedging yet another point difference between Scotland and England, and prolong an argument that can, ultimately, only end in one way: nuclear disarmament.