The shadow foreign secretary showed yesterday what an effective, coherent opposition should look like
I have been a member of the Labour Party for fifteen years and never have I witnessed anything like yesterday.
MPs had a grave decision to make – to support military action against ISIL in Syria or not.
The debate started on a poor note. The prime minister failed to give a clear explanation of his figure that 70,000 moderate Syrians were ready to provide the boots on the ground needed to back up air strikes.
His decision not to apologise for his remarks that those opposed to military action were somehow ‘terrorist sympathisers’ was also an error of judgement that diminished the standing of the office that David Cameron holds.
Then came Jeremy Corbyn – head down in his notes, he simply faced a barrage of noise from the Conservative MPs, failing to answer head on his views about the air strikes currently taking place in Iraq against ISIL, strikes undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi government itself.
The new, honest politics obviously did not extend to answering a straight question with a straight answer. The sight of deputy leader Tom Watson with his head in his hands said it all.
But then came Hilary Benn. Since agreeing to serve under Jeremy Corbyn Benn has been placed in a difficult, if not impossible position. He was forced to clear up the mess created by Corbyn’s failure to provide leadership on the UK’s place in the EU, and over Syria he has been propelled to play the statesman role that the leader of the official opposition is incapable of doing.
Benn’s speech last night was well and truly electrifying. The passion, the energy and the clarity that he brought to the argument was the kind of speech that neither Cameron nor Corbyn could deliver. It was a speech of a prime minister in waiting.
Jeremy Corbyn sat stony faced throughout, not even able to muster a ‘well done’ on the delivery of a great speech to his shadow foreign secretary.
The Labour Party now faces a crunch moment that it has to confront head on. Yes, Labour members voted overwhelming for Jeremy Corbyn to lead the party but sometimes reality has to hit us.
Jeremy Corbyn is not a prime minister in waiting. His poll ratings are tanking further (if that were possible) among those voters who ultimately decide who governs the country.
His inability to present a united front on crucial security issues would pose severe difficulties of the UK’s position in the world if he were, by some fluke, ever to make it to Downing Street.
But worst of all has been his attitude to his parliamentary colleagues. Yes, he called for an atmosphere of tolerance as MP after MP has faced abuse for supporting military intervention in Syria, but it was he that sent Labour MPs to face the wolves last weekend, leaving them to stew. It was shameful.
Members of the parliamentary Labour Party and the country as a whole know the truth. For all his admirable qualities and principles, Jeremy Corbyn cannot and will not win a General Election. Hilary Benn showed yesterday what an effective, coherent opposition should look like.
Air strikes over Syria are now being undertaken in defence of democracy. In the UK our democracy is in peril thanks to the absence of a credible opposition to hold the government to account.
The Labour Party cannot go on like this. Something, and more specifically someone, needs to change and change now.
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor at Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
127 Responses to “Comment: Hilary Benn showed us what Labour is missing”
Mike B
A couple of years ago Labour under the leadership of Ed Miliband tackled the ill thought out policy of Cameron and others on Syria. He built dialogue across the political spectrum and presented a well argued and reasoned set of arguments. The result of all that was that we stopped being dragged into a conflict with few aims and ending up almost on the same side as Daesh. That was not to say there was any implied support for the disgusting Assad regime but the effect was not to be dragged into a bloody mess. There will (already is) a war with the psychopathic forces let loose in the middle east. Now fast forward to now. Under Corbyn and his supporters an ineffective politics has been practiced and the vote on another poorly considered campaign is lost. The current leadership of Labour are not up to the job. They have no concept of working with others and are stuck in a festering dogma. If they cared at all for the party they would go. There are many better suited who could take their place. Fake purity based on rigid unbending concepts fail. Life is messy it requires reality not empty slogans.
Lesley1
He represented the view of a minority of the PLP nevermind the rest of the party. He was cheered by the Tories and quoted on the front page of the Torygraph. It is clear that he led the demand for a free vote, where a 3 line whip would have sent Cameron running off to hide in a corner. He did all this after telling the independent 2 weeks earlier Labour would vote against air strikes. Just the person to unite the party? Corbyn should have a reshuffle asap
RoyB
So the hallmark of effective opposition is to be more effective in supporting Government policy than the Government itself? Brilliant speech, but scarcely opposed to Government policy! As for the threats to UK democracy, just try a Government elected by a quarter of the electorate pursuing extreme right wing policies. Our way of electing Parliament and of appointing our Government is anachronistic, to say the least and simply fails to reflect current political reality. That is the true threat to UK democracy.
Cole
Unfortunately, over 50% of the voters in May voted for right wing parties…
RoyB
So, how does this affect the substance of my comment? The Tories and UKIP diverge in many policy areas as do the Unionists.