Few politicians have emerged from the events of the last few weeks with their reputations enhanced, but the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, is the exception. His cool and deft handling of the Ukraine crisis has impressed even those who felt that he was only appointed because of his long-term support for Boris Johnson.

So impressed are some of his fellow MPs that they even whisper about him having become a contender for the leadership. They can’t have failed to notice that he has overtaken The Trussette in the monthly Conservative Home popularity polls, and he has done it without trying to take the form of a Margaret Thatcher reincarnation.

Certainly, he has resisted the oh-too-obvious photo opportunities that his predecessors loved so much. He doesn’t need to prove his credentials. He just gets on with the job, a lesson some of his more iridescent colleagues could learn from.

Wallace seems to be a natural conciliator and has been seen as the leader among Europe’s defence ministers. “What does Ben think,” is the question most often asked by them. The Baltic states almost worship him and his article posted on the MoD website a few weeks ago, outlining what was at stake, is considered a masterpiece.

It is true that the Defence Secretary doesn’t have the flair of a Sunak or the television mastery of a Zahawi, but he has “bottom”, and in war situations that counts for a lot. So yes, he now has to be mentioned as a contender – but as a contender for what?

One senior Conservative told me that he would like to sit Wallace down and tell him to forget talk of becoming prime minister. What he should be aiming for now is to be the next secretary general of Nato.

A Briton hasn’t held the post in nearly 20 years – in fact, not since George Robertson, who was defence secretary under Tony Blair. The alliance has lost its way. Perhaps Wallace is just the man to rescue it.

Taking the side of our enemies

I’ve probably spent more hours on the radio than any other presenter in the country discussing the Ukraine crisis. We have had some fantastic contributors. Tom in Brighton gave a masterpiece of a lesson on the history of Ukraine which was so good that I invited him to record a 40-minute podcast on the subject with me. On Monday, we had Alex in Nottingham giving us a tour de force on Vladimir Putin’s desire to create a Greater Russia. He spoke for 10 minutes with barely an interruption from me.

However, what I have noticed above all else is the dark side of some of these conversations, where people ring in with one aim – to give Putin the benefit of the doubt and to question the motives of Nato or their own government.

In previous times, they would have been called quislings. They genuinely believe that Nato is an evil force, bent on attacking Russia, while Putin is a leader who is merely intent on looking after his own people and probably loves animals, too. The BBC is biased in favour of the Conservatives and Russia Today is the very model of balance, according to these misguided idiots.

I give as good as I get, and then get accused of hating Russia and being a warmonger. What has happened to us when, among a sizeable proportion of the public, the default position appears to be to automatically take the side of the country’s enemies?

France’s Thatcher falls flat 

Iain Duncan Smith once said that a new political leader has 90 days to convince people they have got what it takes. Seventy-three days after the Republicans picked her to carry the centre-Right banner into the French presidential elections, Valérie Pécresse has convinced no one that she can beat the eminently beatable Emmanuel Macron. She looks the part, but her stuttering campaign is close to collapse.

She tries to portray herself as a French Margaret Thatcher yet she convinces no one. On Monday she gave a pedestrian speech in a hangar in which even Barack Obama would have found it difficult to whip up a crowd. It was full of nationalist dog whistles, but it ignored the fact that the type of voters which this rhetoric appeals to won’t vote for a pale substitute. They have got Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour to choose from already.

It’s not too late to dump Pecresse. Perhaps Michel Barnier’s time will come, after all? Ze clock is ticking.

How to name a storm

Today, the good burghers of the North East will be facing the wrath of Storm Dudley. This is somewhat ironic given Dudley is in the West Midlands.

I had always thought the point of naming storms was to make people sit up, pay attention and worry. So let me pose a gentle question to you. Does a weatherperson uttering the phrase “Storm Dudley” or “Storm Eunice” (Eunice is next on the alphabetical Met Office list) strike terror into your heart and make you ponder battening down the hatches? Thought not.

What we surely all want is Storm Tyson, Storm Griselda or Storm Cruella. At least we’d know what we were in for.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio