Let's be honest. Jeremy Corbyn has some excellent policies, has stood up very well against some fierce criticism and comes across as likeable to most people but his critics are not entirely with the fairies when they say he lacks leadership qualities. Not every Labour MP who has turned against him is a war mongering, splitter who is determined to wreck the workers movement at all costs. Nor are they all evil self seeking monsters who care only about their own position. If that is true why have so many of them given up front bench positions that they would never have achieved if it wasn't for Jeremy offering them the opportunity? The problem that they have observed at close quarters is that he hasn't won enough of the battles with the opposition when they were in disarray and an easy victory looked to be there for the taking. He also utterly failed to produce a powerful enough campaign to keep us in the EU. So it is not entirely surprising that a large majority of MPs are saying that Corbyn just doesn't have leadership qualities.
So let's assume for a minute that his critics within the Labour Party are correct and that he really doesn't have it and never will. Even if you accept that premise there is a real difficulty with the arguments that the rebel MPs are putting forward. Put simply - where is the alternative leader who possesses these qualities in spades? Does anyone think that Angela Eagle has charisma? Can anyone seriously see her standing up at Prime Minister's questions and taking on Theresa May? It would be like putting a Rottweiler in with a rabbit. Anna has shown some very clear characteristics over the past couple of weeks. Dithering. Inconsistency. Timidity. Worry. Do such qualities strike you as those of a strong leader? Insipid doesn't begin to cover it for me and I suspect most of the nation. Angela Eagle represents more of a problem of lack of leadership qualities than Corbyn. At least he comes across as likeable and having an inner strength and some real convictions. Qualities that are rather important at a time when trust is at a real premium.
Now consider the other alternatives. In the elections last year the Labour Party put up some candidates that had CVs that equipped them seriously for the role of PM. Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper are neither lightweights nor fools. But did either of them succeed in engaging even remotely with the electorate? Was their failure down to the fact that Labour had recruited a lot of young activists who were determined on change regardless? Or was their failure down to the fact that they ran totally lacklustre campaigns, showed little or no fire in their bellies and didn't seem to have a proper explanation of what had gone wrong for Labour and where it should go next. The main reason neither of them provided a half way serious challenge to Corbyn is that they simply didn't offer credible leadership. They sounded like half way competent Ministers but not like people who could take on the challenge of leading a country.
If those were the best the party had to offer at that time then where is the evidence that there is a better alternative leadership figure now? Tom Watson has tried hard to position himself as a power broker that can heal the party. Has he come across to anyone as a strong, well organised, clear thinker with a clear programme for change and the inspirational qualities to lead the whole country forward into implementing that agenda. I don't think I am alone in regarding the answer to that question as a clear negative.
So the problem is basically this. A large majority of Labour MPs don't think their current leader is very good. But they don't have an alternative leader in mind. Not one of them has the character to inspire or a track record that has marked them out as clearly different. So what on earth could have inspired them to launch a plot without a leader? I had always thought that the first rule of organising a coup is that you not only know who you want to get rid of but you also know who or what you want to put in their place and preferably what you want them to do when they get there. We may be looking at one of the first coups in history to be organised by people who haven't decided what they want to do if they win.
For me this leaves only two explanations for the revolt. The first is raw emotion and anger about the referendum result without any real thought about how to use that emotion. Not a very impressive way for serious politicians to behave. Nor a very good recipe for formulating a strong alternative government. The second reason is a genuine ideological divide that can never be healed.
If the second of those explanations is true then the best thing for Labour is to get on with the split. Get it over with and we'll all have to work out how to function with a number of alternative progressive parties. It is possible that the right will follow suit and divide into a number of alternative nationalist, reactionary or business orientated parties.
If the first is more accurate then those criticising Corbyn need to find a way of offering the membership a continuation of his politics with a credible alternative leader. For me the one person who has thrived under Corbyn, showed some real steel and determination and has a clearly thought through idea of where he wants to take the country is John McDonnell. After one piece of childish stupidity - waving Mao's book & thinking the nation would get an obscure joke - he has learned how to deal with an astonishing amount of pressure. So why not stitch up a deal that puts McDonnell in place and has Jeremy as a Minister? Put someone with real leadership qualities in place who will see through the agenda that the party voted for and go for a McDonnell led party.
If that is more than the Labour Party's divisive forces can cope with then we can be very clear about one thing. Their opposition to Corbyn isn't driven by a clear minded desire to get a strong electable leader in place before the next election. It is driven by a deep dislike of the political agenda he is following and that is all.
So let's assume for a minute that his critics within the Labour Party are correct and that he really doesn't have it and never will. Even if you accept that premise there is a real difficulty with the arguments that the rebel MPs are putting forward. Put simply - where is the alternative leader who possesses these qualities in spades? Does anyone think that Angela Eagle has charisma? Can anyone seriously see her standing up at Prime Minister's questions and taking on Theresa May? It would be like putting a Rottweiler in with a rabbit. Anna has shown some very clear characteristics over the past couple of weeks. Dithering. Inconsistency. Timidity. Worry. Do such qualities strike you as those of a strong leader? Insipid doesn't begin to cover it for me and I suspect most of the nation. Angela Eagle represents more of a problem of lack of leadership qualities than Corbyn. At least he comes across as likeable and having an inner strength and some real convictions. Qualities that are rather important at a time when trust is at a real premium.
Now consider the other alternatives. In the elections last year the Labour Party put up some candidates that had CVs that equipped them seriously for the role of PM. Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper are neither lightweights nor fools. But did either of them succeed in engaging even remotely with the electorate? Was their failure down to the fact that Labour had recruited a lot of young activists who were determined on change regardless? Or was their failure down to the fact that they ran totally lacklustre campaigns, showed little or no fire in their bellies and didn't seem to have a proper explanation of what had gone wrong for Labour and where it should go next. The main reason neither of them provided a half way serious challenge to Corbyn is that they simply didn't offer credible leadership. They sounded like half way competent Ministers but not like people who could take on the challenge of leading a country.
If those were the best the party had to offer at that time then where is the evidence that there is a better alternative leadership figure now? Tom Watson has tried hard to position himself as a power broker that can heal the party. Has he come across to anyone as a strong, well organised, clear thinker with a clear programme for change and the inspirational qualities to lead the whole country forward into implementing that agenda. I don't think I am alone in regarding the answer to that question as a clear negative.
So the problem is basically this. A large majority of Labour MPs don't think their current leader is very good. But they don't have an alternative leader in mind. Not one of them has the character to inspire or a track record that has marked them out as clearly different. So what on earth could have inspired them to launch a plot without a leader? I had always thought that the first rule of organising a coup is that you not only know who you want to get rid of but you also know who or what you want to put in their place and preferably what you want them to do when they get there. We may be looking at one of the first coups in history to be organised by people who haven't decided what they want to do if they win.
For me this leaves only two explanations for the revolt. The first is raw emotion and anger about the referendum result without any real thought about how to use that emotion. Not a very impressive way for serious politicians to behave. Nor a very good recipe for formulating a strong alternative government. The second reason is a genuine ideological divide that can never be healed.
If the second of those explanations is true then the best thing for Labour is to get on with the split. Get it over with and we'll all have to work out how to function with a number of alternative progressive parties. It is possible that the right will follow suit and divide into a number of alternative nationalist, reactionary or business orientated parties.
If the first is more accurate then those criticising Corbyn need to find a way of offering the membership a continuation of his politics with a credible alternative leader. For me the one person who has thrived under Corbyn, showed some real steel and determination and has a clearly thought through idea of where he wants to take the country is John McDonnell. After one piece of childish stupidity - waving Mao's book & thinking the nation would get an obscure joke - he has learned how to deal with an astonishing amount of pressure. So why not stitch up a deal that puts McDonnell in place and has Jeremy as a Minister? Put someone with real leadership qualities in place who will see through the agenda that the party voted for and go for a McDonnell led party.
If that is more than the Labour Party's divisive forces can cope with then we can be very clear about one thing. Their opposition to Corbyn isn't driven by a clear minded desire to get a strong electable leader in place before the next election. It is driven by a deep dislike of the political agenda he is following and that is all.
RSS Feed
