Jeremy Corbyn wants to forge a new kind of politics, answering public discontent with the way things are done in Westminster. One of the things that voters often say they don’t like about politicians is the way they appear to abandon their principles in exchange for power. The idea that power acts as a sort of fire extinguisher on principles has been debated rather exhaustively through the leadership election. But Corbyn won that contest in part because people admired his ability to stick to his principles even when that appeared inconvenient. As an obscure backbencher being principled to the point of unpopularity was easy. Corbyn is discovering this week that, funnily enough, it’s much harder when you’re not just speaking for Jeremy Corbyn but for your frontbench and the entire Labour party.
However, Corbyn’s second response to public dissatisfaction with politicians is to allow his frontbenchers to disagree with him in public. Even if they haven’t been told that they’re allowed to say what they think when asked in broadcasts, frontbenchers clearly think that it’s OK to say what they think, and even to disagree. So on Monday Hilary Benn refused to praise the appointment of John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor, and tried to set Labour’s European policy live on air, claiming his party would campaign to stay in the EU at all costs. Last night Owen Smith appeared to be refining Corbyn’s policy on the benefit cap from removing it entirely to opposing lowering it to £23,000, and said that the leader should have sung the National Anthem at yesterday’s Battle of Britain memorial service.
This morning, Kate Green, Labour’s shadow minister for women and equalities told the Today programme:
‘It will have offended and hurt people. Jeremy absolutely stands with and respects everybody who has fought, who has lost their life, been wounded in fighting, oppression and defending our free regions.
‘For many people… singing the national anthem is a way of showing that respect. I think it would have been appropriate and right and respectful of people’s feelings to have done so.’
Contrast that with what one Labour frontbencher under the Miliband administration described as a ‘Stalinist’ and ‘control freak’ approach to collective responsibility, which meant no-one was allowed to express a view on anything, even if it didn’t contradict the party line. MPs who set up a group on Labour’s policy on England in 2014 were put on the ‘naughty step’ by their leadership, even though they never intended to embarrass their leader and merely wanted to discuss policy.
So perhaps this is refreshing, that finally shadow ministers are allowed to disagree with the man who leads their party. And better, surely for them to be able to say it publicly than privately while lurking in a corridor holding an off-the-record conversation with a journalist. But there is a fine line between being open and honest and utterly confusing voters with a cacophony of opinions. Jeremy Corbyn has been elected to speak for the Labour party and because people don’t spend hours watching politics, his actions will be read as actions on behalf of the Labour party. And he also needs to communicate clearly what his party stands for. If he is saying one thing and his frontbenchers who have agreed to serve under his leadership are saying another, then communicating Labour principles will be much more difficult.
Comments