Green Party deputy leader: being 'good and decent' should count for something
As in many areas of policy and process, the Green Party is ahead of its time. (That’s one way of being progressive.)
Take this statement about leadership from us as it pertains to good governance:
‘We seek a society in which people are empowered and involved in making the decisions which affect them.
We advocate participatory and democratic politics. Leadership should always be accountable, consensus-driven and moral.
We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers.’
The complaints of Corbyn’s erstwhile front bench colleagues have become a cacophony over the last few days. A vote of no confidence was precipitated and won by them. Corbyn has never looked more vulnerable.
Far from seeking to capitalise on Labour’s grief for party political gain, I simply wish to understand it and what it says about leadership in politics.
Given Corbyn’s refrain that he was elected overwhelmingly by grassroots members to pursue a new and different way of doing politics, we should ask whether his leadership style needs to be given a better chance.
The scenes of people gathering to greet and support the Labour leader outside parliament this week were quite extraordinary.
Far from finding himself undermined in their eyes, Corbyn is seen as representing their cause more vividly, as the underdog versus the establishment. Here is a leader they can identify with – for them, it is his detractors who have lost touch.
What does this tell us about what his detractors say makes a good leader? Should Corbyn have made others believe in something he didn’t, or at least not to the extent required, by confecting emotion? How does that sit with honesty and authenticity in politics, characteristics in all too short supply?
The biggest clue comes from Hilary Benn’s put-down of Corbyn:
‘He’s a good and decent man, but he’s not a leader. That’s the problem.’
Benn begs the question about what counts as a leader, or at least a good one.
It sounds like he is claiming Corbyn’s stated attributes count for nothing towards leadership. Yet surely he is wrong about that.
To be a good leader one should surely be at least ‘good and decent’; call it a necessary if not sufficient condition.
Leaders pursuing wrongful causes are ten-a-penny. They are bad leaders in the most important sense, in their failure of moral judgement.
While Corbyn’s own colleagues plot against him, they might reflect on the alternative: empower thyself – not to have control over Corbyn, but rather to direct oneself to post-Brexit emergency planning.
This might require rather more leadership than they are used to showing, and it sounds to me, for all their protest, that they would not make for good leaders.
Shahrar Ali is deputy leader of the Green Party
See: Jeremy Corbyn ‘will not betray’ members by resigning
See: Is Corbyn’s mandate as robust as he thinks it is?
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
20 Responses to “What do Jeremy Corbyn’s critics mean by ‘good leadership’?”
Martyn Wood-Bevan
Excellent article! Absolutely right that most Labour MP’s have shown no leadership “Post-Brexit” and have been negative from the off. I really appreciate Corbyn at PMQ’s and have listened to many of his speeches – best ones of the Remain campaign by far. No wonder so many party members are absolutely furious. Tony Blair was quite charismatic, but also dishonest, controlling, biased and self-centred. If that’s what is known as good leadership I don’t want any part of it. No wonder the PLP are struggling to find anyone to stand against Corbyn – bunch of nasty , disloyal whingers.
Shaun Cohen
So much for democracy in the Labour Party, never mind the membership, our self serving MPs, who would rather worry about their own careers in Parliament, rathyer than accept the democratic wishes of Labour members and supporters. Look at the facts, how has Labour fared under Jeremy Corbyn. It didinot matter what Jeremy Corbyn did or not do in the referendum campaign, the fact is the majority of Labour voters saw the vote as an opportunity to make a stand against immigration. Look at history whenver the fra right has made gains, where has it come from?
Miriam Yagud
Absolutely Right. Leadership is doing what you say you will do.
No amount of charismatic flattery will conceal a liar in the end.
Let’s judge them by what they do not what they say
Linda Peterson
The divisions within the Labour party have been promoted relentlessly by the PLP ever since losing the last election. The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader was a wonderful opportunity for the party to unite with fresh vigour to work together in opposition. The opposite happened, driven yet again by the PLP who for some reason could not accept Mr Corbyn as their elected leader. Shouting “but he’s not a leader” over and over again very loudly at every opportunity, will eventually become self-fulfilling prophecy.
I have no doubt they will eventually get rid of this good man, even if they have to kill him. There are clearly forces at work behind the scenes who are not showing either their faces or their intentions. However, I very much doubt that the Labour members and supporters will forgive the Party for sentencing them to yet more years of Tory reign and destroying their one hope of a leader who is willing to stand up for them. The PLP are guaranteeing the decimation of the Labour Party in one fell swoop.
But then I guess the Labour Party is a small pawn to sacrifice to Corporate power.
Steve Mizzy
A reality check is required.
Corbyn has his attributes but being a leader of a major political party requires a great deal more than he has to offer.
Despite my initial support and hopes for him to be successful, I’ve now accepted that his limitations make him unsuitable to be in his current role. It seems obvious to me that he simply isn’t up to it. And really we should have cottoned on to that a lot earlier.
Being good and decent, by themselves, are nowhere near enough.