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”
Steve Cheney
Oh, cmon now: no one _actually_ loves Dan Hodges.
Cole
But your lot are now wanting to deselect anyone who opposes them. It’s the 80s all over again. And don’t deny it. There’s endless stuff demanding purges by Corbynustas on social media.
Cole
Maybe he just made a good speech and was passionate about what he believed. But of course he will is be hounded and called a Tory by these newcomers to the Labour Party.
JayUKChelsea
well said Mr Jacobs – whether agree or not agree – Hilary put together a coherent and clear message – Cameron was poor and if Jeremy could get even poorer I dont think so. There were strong arguments for and against, but the only one I went – yeah with my gut was Hilary – need a leader, not some kind of wet dodgy leader, sort of yes I see every point of view, yesh 100000 displeasent aint-war twitters, but 2 people have also attacked me, kind of wet, limp, apologist view of leadership. The buck stops and Jeremy aint got no buck stopping in him – any other nice lefties which will get the entryists to vote for them but live in the real world when Jeremy resigns next year???
Steve Cheney
“But your lot are now wanting to deselect anyone who opposes them.”
I’m not sure who you think “my lot” are! As for “Corbynistas”, you know that we’re not actually a big club who all get together to decide how best to egg Old Man Danczuk’s house, right? I am sure that anyone you see calling for de-selection will always be a “Corbynista” in your mind, but that would obviously be frivolous. The aforementioned Mr Danczuk has been attacking Labour in the press since LONG before Corbyn was made leader – are we allowed to call for HIS de-selection?
Honestly, the way you talk, you’d think that de-selection wasn’t a Thing until recently. Nothing much has changed, except the clear shift (which the political class is naturally furious that Corbyn capitalised on before they even noticed it) that social media has caused towards greater political engagement for ordinary clods.
Frankly, you seem to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you can be lumped together in a group and accused of anything because, hey, what are they gonna do? Your posts here speak for themselves.
This is the climate that all these ludicrous proposals for “social media codes of conduct” will inevitably lead to – where power belongs solely to the unscrupulous because normal people are discouraged from using it themselves. And that’s pretty much the opposite of what Labour should stand for.