I am sure there are saintly people. I am not sure I have met one, but they must exist. You know the sort: people of pure conviction so driven to goodness that they have always acted selflessly in pursuit of a higher goal and never erred when doing so.
This, it seems, is what many expect the next leader of the Labour Party to be.
For the record, those people are going to be disappointed.
Saints of this sort are not just exceptional, they're also other worldly. They've got nothing wrong because they haven't done anything. Nor do they have any experience as a result.
And actually those aren't the sort of people who have, by and large, been declared saints over the years. Many actual saints have been quite clearly deeply flawed individuals who have learned from experience how to do the right thing. But left wingers don't now see that as a qualification for office, it seems. Only unflawed saints need apply for office in their opinion.
It's deeply depressing.
And candidly it plays straight into the hands of the right wing who have always accused anyone even vaguely on the left of hypocrisy if they have ever worked for the private sector, owned a share, put money into an ISA or anything else that is entirely acceptable in the real world.
I don't look for saints of the first sort that I describe in politics because I know I won't find one.
Can we undertake politic debate on the basis of that reality, please?
If we did it might even help attract better candidates into the arena, on all sides.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Indeed Richard, but I’d say that we also shouldn’t be expecting supermen either.
Following your previous post considering Corbyn’s performance I think you have done him a disservice by not fully considering the political context in which he has performed.
I too have been disappointed by his performance, but you really have to give more account of the extreme pressure he has been under from a very uncooperative PLP. He bent over backwards to produce an inclusive Shadow Cabinet, but I have seen precious little evidence of it’s members taking much of the strain in developing policy. Heidi Alexander was mentioned in the comments of your previous post, but you could also look at Hilary Benn’s very-last-minute grandstanding Syria about-turn and Angela Eagle at Defence (who was happy to say that Corbyn would not be a viable PM almost as soon as she was appointed).
All this in the context of blanket media hostility (see the recent LSE newspaper research) and the thoroughly uncritical way all sections of the media have gleefully covered the antisemitism row and the lurid claims of abuse from his supporters (most of which fall appart under any scrutiny at all).
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/bart-cammaerts-brooks-decillia-joa-o-magalha-es-and-ce-sar-jimenez-marti-nez/when-our-watchdog-be
It’s all very well saying leaders must lead, but I can’t think of any politician of recent years who could have stood up to all the crap thrown at him and come out on top. Can you think of any?
I’m still inclined to support him — if only now because I just can’t bear to see his opponents triumph.
Jeremy Corbyn had a massive mandate for change last summer
If he could not make it work on the basis of that he never will – except by sacking large parts of the membership, most MPs and millions of the electorate
I undertasnd exactly how it works
And it didn’t then
And it could never do so again. He got one shot at this and he’s flunked it
He had his mandate from the members only, not the PLP who were almost all against him. It could well be said he tried the democratic and inclusive approach with the PLP last time and it did not work as they were unwilling to budge.
If he wins again with a similar manadate then perhaps an autocratic purge of the PLP will be the necessary option.
I don’t agree with that approach as a matter of principle, but if the PLP has become so ingrained with a narrative and ideology which is at odds with the party’s own aims and values and membership wishes, then it could certainly be justified for the sake of the party’s future existence in my opinion.
However, the real underlying systemic problem which is at the root cause of this in my opinion is the adversarial two party state system enforced by FPTP, which it seems almost all contributors on this blog agrees with.
It will be interesting to see if any of the leadership contenders come out in favour of changing the electoral system, with this as their main policy platform as suggested in an earlier blog.
So the choice of the wider electorate is to be purged?
Now where have I heard of such things happening before?
This is insanity
And fundamentally undemocratic – which the public wil;l not forget
I seriously wonder if most in labour want to form a government or play games
“So the choice of the wider electorate is to be purged?”
Oh come on Richard, we all know it is not the electorate who get to choose which candidates are selected by the parties to represent them at local levels.
I agree that would be a much better system though!
But they did choose them
And you want them purged
Candidly your language is deeply disatsteful
I have no idea what has been distasteful about my language, but for fear of being accused of trolling again I will make this my last comment on this subject.
If my use of the word “purge” was offensive then it should be taken in the context of the action of the “coup” plotters and supporters who clearly had the same objective of “removing” the elected leader without a democratic vote by the labour members.
As that particular attempt has failed, there now appears to be further attempts to undermine the local democratic activities of the CLP’s and restrict the ability of the poor, unemployed etc to take part in the leadership vote by setting the bar above what most on a low wage or benefits could easily afford.
Now if all that fails and Corbyn is elected again – what should he do in your opinion? Nothing, shake their hands, kiss and make up or take firm action?
As every “coup” plotter and supported should know, there must be a price to pay for failure otherwise the risk of “moral hazard” is ever present for future plotters.
End of my commentary on this matter.
“Purge” is hostile and violent
Remember an MP was killed recently
And she would have been one of our plotters
Think on it
Richard No saints available, but Corbyn shows honesty, integrity, compassion, those traits will do for me.
Is that enough to forgive incompetence?
The electorate will not agree
Those in need will not forgive you
Labour led by Owen Smith would get wiped out by the Tories. Polling shows he does nothing to close their lead.
Labour led by Angela Eagle would get wiped out by the Tories. Polling shows she actually widens their lead.
Labour faces a massive task to rebuild itself in the eyes of the public and the continuity New Labour faction contribute nothing towards that aim. Indeed their intransigence looks like nothing more than cowardice, flinching in the face of the long and difficult struggle ahead of us.
It took 23 years for the Tories to win their majority yet your implication is that Corbyn should have overturned it in nine months. It is nonsensical.
Has [olling been done?
And you think when few know who he is that is clear indication?
Of course that polling has been done, how would I refer to it otherwise?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
“Vote Smith – people don’t know who he is” is hardly a inspiring campaign slogan, as is about to be demonstrated.
No one knew who Cameron was when he was chosen
I’d settle for a challenger who hasn’t lobbied for NHS privatisation, didn’t vote to bomb everyone for 15 years then claim that noting that record was unfair, didn’t just abstain on the Tory assault against the vulnerable and isn’t using stolen membership data in a campaign built wholly on funding from millionaire/billionaire outside interests.
I believe that is the territory on which any election for the leader of what still claims to be a democratic socialist party must be, and will be, won.
If you find your Saint who’s also done anything let me know
Very much agree.
Isn’t Keynes supposed to have said something like when the the facts change – I change my mind?
There is, anyway, the matter of learning from your mistakes.
And finally an old Japanese proverb ‘A man who makes no mistakes makes nothing’.
But having said all that, it would be good if more politicians themselves would acknowledge this and, even better, if the media would accept it.
If Boris ends up being part of a government that doesn’t get us out of the EU it will be interesting to see how or if he manages mistakes or changes of mind…
I was, I admit, quoting Keynes
Well said.
On Owen Smith, it seems likely that the most accurate picture can be gotten from looking at what he has said in Commons debates (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=section%3Adebates+section%3Awhall+section%3Alords+section%3Ani&pid=24797&pop=1&q=section%3Adebates+section%3Awhall+section%3Alords+section%3Ani+&p=2) and at his votes (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24797/owen_smith/pontypridd/votes).
I agree that I would always choose a highly experienced and broadly experienced (which by definition most probably means older) politician who has clearly learned from all of the good and bad aspects of their life experience to form the basis of their political direction, policies and convictions.
As opposed to an inexperienced or narrowly experienced politician (which most probably means younger) who is still on the life and career path of gaining the necessary experience and making necessary mistakes along the way before getting to a position of real power where a mistake or misjudgement can be costly to the whole of society.
But it is always necessary to scrutinise every candidate for what really lies underneath the words they spout, because if nothing else we have learned from the last few political leaders that platitudes and false oratory get this country nowhere in terms of social or economic progress.
So past words and actions must be questioned and scrutinised for every candidate, as Corbyn and Mcdonnell know only too well from their own media inquisitions. Smith and eagle deserve just the same level of public scrutiny in my opinion, but not any abuse or threats which are never justified in a civilised society.
I’m happy with a “sinner” as long as he/she is a repentant one!
I’ll take competence, some vision, some humility, plus the ability to properly lead at Westminster and to effectively communicate to the wider electorate against Sainthood any day of the week.
Principle is a great thing. But it cannot be the only thing.
This is pretty poor straw-manning, who is calling for saints? That monolith you refer to as ‘left wingers’?
The fact is there is much to dislike in Corbyn’s challengers, I see no value, progress or electability in either of these pro trident, welfare bill bed wetters.
I wish andrew marr had asked smith why he supported austerity and what it was supposed to acheive.
Voting for the destruction of Libya is not something you can shrug off.
They have stepped forward to damage Corbyn, not replace him. While I agree they have an appetite for office,power is the last thing they want to exercise.
Paul
If the best you can do is resort to name calling it shows the shallowness of your politics
Please don’t bother to waste my time again
Richard
I hold no brief for Corbyn and agree that McDonnell has failed to deliver an economic strategy and alienated many otherwise supportive progressive economists. But the interview with Smith and Eagle on TV was a train wreck. I really don’t see, given your (and my) views on the economy, how you can support someone like Smith who comes out with “austerity is right”. Surely that is one of the key elements of your economic case that he is rejecting? Even the Tories seem to have abandoned it (albeit temporarily I suspect). The messiah is yet to reveal herself, but it ain’t Eagle or Smith, who seems to me to be a bit of a chancer.
I have not seen the interview
As far as I can see the comment was a mistake: it doesn’t flow in the context of what he said then or in his launch speech
But if you want to hear just one phrase then clearly feel free to do so
And perpetuate neoliberal power
I watched the programme and Smith was very good, articulate and engaging. Eagle wasn’t terribly impressive relying on the fact that she’s a northern working class woman.
Smith said this at his impressive leadership launch – “It is not enough for the Labour Party to simply talk about being anti-austerity. We have to set out a detailed plan for how Labour would replace failed Tory austerity with credible proposals for prosperity”
Precisely
Fellow readers,
I read this Post, and also Richard’s post “The rise and fall of Corbyn’s economics”, and all the comments posted, with mounting anger and disbelief – not against Richard, nor against the largely excellent comments from my fellow posters.
No, my anger was directed at Jeremy Corbyn, for having let slip a historic opportunity truly to transform British politics. I accept – indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with – all the provisos and caveats about Corbyn’s treatment at the hands of the undoubtedly vicious and meretricious MSM, and equally applaud Jeremy’s steadiness of nerve and courage, and unfailing dignity and civility: few other politicians would have displayed such almost “saintlike” restraint and steadiness.
Equally, I accept that the PLP has not treated him fairly, and has sought to undermine him, and to invalidate his ideas, as representing a “clear and present danger” to their palsied neo-liberalism, and “cowardly politician” behaviour – all charges levelled against the PLP, which may, or may not, be valid, but which fall outside this point, which is that, despite trying to be inclusive, Corbyn was largely met with hostility by the PLP,some of whom who MAY, as some aver, have been plotting against him from before e won the Leadership.
Let us, however, examine each of this two points from another perspective: first, Jeremy’s steadiness of nerve, and fixity of purpose. this could just be stubbornness, and inflexibility, as some claim, but the real problem here is that, apart from the passionate “warm words” of his public utterances, it is very hard to identify – as Richard makes clear – just WHAT has been the outcome of these utterances: no clearly defined economic or societal vision, beyond those warms words, which are infinitely attractive, but remain just words, until translated into concrete policy.
It was Arthur Koestler, I believe, who identified the flaw in Marxism as being a painfully clear analysis of the noxious cellar in which the proletariat were scarcely surviving, and and equally clear exposition of the grand penthouse suite where the proletariat would be housed after the full implementation of Communism, but with no clear description of the staircase or elevator linking the two, and enabling the proletariat to emerge from their destitution.
Last year, with his mandate, and the assistance of his top-notch advisers, Corbyn had a “once in a lifetime” (probably literally) opportunity to enunciate a vision of PRACTICAL anti-austerity and pro-real-prosperity and fairness, the production of which would have silenced his critics, and won over, I would say, not just the PLP, but many wavering voters, and would SURELY have had a major destabilising effect on an imploding governing Tory Party.
NOT to have done this is, I regret to say, negligence on such a scale as would constitute, in the practice of a profession – and politics IS a profession as well as a vocation – not just “gross professional negligence”, but even “criminal negligence”. One only has to think how Harold Wilson would have played this (or Atlee before him, and Callaghan Blair and Brown, who succeeded Wilson) to get the measure of this degree of negligence. Such opportunities are not like buses – they don’t suddenly come round in threes, but are exceedingly rare, more like Halley’s Comet in frequency, without its certainty of return.
Then there are the, as Richard notes, three “enquiries, into the Treasury, Bank of England and HM Revenue & Customs were established and given far too long to report: none has as yet.”
In both instances – a general policy statement and the specific three enquiries – the words of the Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus, better known as Horace, spring to mind:
“parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus” = “the mountains are in labour, and will give birth to a piddling little mouse”.
On the second issue, his treatment of, and at the hands of, the PLP, the description Richard gives of a rudderless Party, with Shadow Cabinet members being unsure of what they should be doing, or what the Party line was on a given issue is deeply shocking and dispiriting. This simply is NOT the way to do things, and as always, the touchstone must be Clement Atlee, who gave crisp instructions to Ministers, then left them to get on with it, equally crisply sacking them if they weren’t up to the job, but always making sure that matters were fully discussed in Cabinet (as also in Shadow Cabinet, when he was in Opposition) and decisions – deftly and quickly made decisions – were communicated to Ministers and the PLP.
Atlee, of course, had a triple advantage: a) his own decisive character, and familiarity with policy development b) his experience in the Gallipoli campaign, where poor communications and indecisiveness could result in loss of life and c) experience of sitting in a War Cabinet, where poor communications and indecisiveness could be catastrophic in results. All of this produced in Atlee a masterly leader, good at Party management, policy development and succinct expression.
Jeremy Corbyn, I fear, is used to effectively expressing ideas in public utterances, such as campaign speeches, or addresses to large groups pf people met for a common purpose (at which he excels and is highly effective), but it would appear that policy development bores or confuses him, while personnel management seems to cause him to clam up and become totally uncommunicative – almost fatal failings in a leader: it was, after all, Ted Heath’s inability to empathise with his backbenchers that led to Margaret Thatcher defeating him in the 1975 Tory Party Leadership campaign.
In sum, I have to say that I will have to seriously consider whether to vote for Corbyn this time, or to consider one of his rivals: only a clear indication of a real conversion on his part, from Delphic ambiguity to true engagement with his critics might persuade me.
But I have to say that it will take a lot to convince me, given the missed open goals (especially the “once in a lifetime” moment last year) and the fear that his hanging on may actually have HINDERED the survival of his ideas, which burst on the political scene with such freshness and conviction last year, and which have undoubtedly shifted the Overton Window to the left, permitting the discussion, and even the contemplation as possibilities, of ideas long held to be be either taboo, or nonsense, or both. I will watch and wait.
Thanks Andrew
A good point Richard.
And let’s be frank – it could also apply to Theresa May and her entourage as well?
I hope so. Let us see.
Many years ago Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said;There is nothing honorable about politics.
I agree.