Corbyn’s victory shakes up British politics

The BBC’s Nick Robinson called it “the most extraordinary, most surprising and now the most unpredictable development in politics for many decades.” Defying the 200-1 odds initially given to him being elected as Ed Miliband’s successor, Jeremy Corbyn is now indeed the new leader of the Labour Party.

Despite receiving the support of a resounding 60 percent of eligible voters in the contest, Jeremy Corbyn faces an uphill struggle and will be desperate to pull off further odds-defying upsets. His critics are plentiful. In his own party, the loyalty of his MPs will be difficult to secure – as will a credible shadow cabinet. With Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Chris Leslie and Rachel Reeves pledging not to serve as shadow ministers, Mr Corbyn’s pool of talent will be restricted. Mr Corbyn’s bigger problem is that the broader public is not so enthused by his ideas as the newly registered supporters he attracted to the Labour Party.

It is remarkable, however, that he was indeed able to enthuse so many supporters behind his leadership cause to begin with. This shows that he cannot be written off. Against three career politician rivals, the source of his appeal was twofold: in his values and in his conviction. This basis of appeal should not be dismissed by those to the centre and centre-right of the Labour Party, and nor should the Conservative Party be at all complacent. People like politicians with values and conviction.

This raises an important point. If Labour is to win the next election, it must somehow find a way of reconciling its values with electability. The choice is never about one over the other, but both. Likewise, therefore, if David Cameron’s One Nation Conservatives are to win the next election, under a new leader, they must do the same. The Conservatives should not be rubbing their hands with glee at Mr Corbyn’s election. They must show that they do not just want to win the next election for the sake of it, or simply to keep Mr Corbyn out of Downing Street, but because they have strongly held values too. There are many injustices in Britain today. The Conservatives must not be indifferent to them because fighting them is up to others with different values, but precisely because doing so is demanded by their own values.

The conservative philosopher and politician Edmund Burke was passionate in his opposition to the injustices of his day: the oppression of Catholics in Ireland, slavery, unfair taxation in the American colonies, widespread poverty, and the colonial exploits of the East India Company. The Tories of today should likewise despise injustice, and work to overcome it where it exists.

Politics is about reconciling means with ends. Mr Corbyn chooses socialism as the means through which he promotes the end of social justice. He is not the only politician who shares the goal of social justice. It is up to the Conservatives and moderates in Labour to demonstrate that they too share Jeremy Corbyn’s noble and worthy goal, but that they believe their means will be more successful to achieving it. Mr Corbyn will in all likelihood lead Labour to defeat in 2020, if he remains the party’s leader until then. His leadership, however, is not without purpose. Its greatest could be in reconvicting Britain’s politicians of all shades with the values they believe in and, crucially, how they can apply them.

 

Crisis is ‘normal’ in Northern Ireland

Stormont’s crisis upon a crisis upon a crisis has grown even deeper, yet it seems that there is less and less to say about it. It has become a normalised part of Northern Ireland politics. That’s hardly the kind of ‘normal’ politics people wanted after the Assembly was restored in 2007.

Peter Robinson made an interesting decision to keep the institutions alive this week by not resigning outright, as some had expected, but rather by transferring his office to the hands of Arlene Foster. Even without other DUP ministers continuing to hold their portfolios, total collapse was avoided – perhaps to avoid a difficult election for the meantime. But what may initially have been a lifeline for the Assembly came to be a new threat of its own: if there was any trust left between the parties to begin with, it quickly evaporated with Mrs Foster’s vow to prevent “rogue” Nationalists from assuming the DUP’s vacated Executive portfolios. She presumably was referring to the SDLP and Sinn Féin’s positions on welfare reform, but her comments were hardly constructive or tactful.

So where does that leave us this week? With so few obvious answers to such deep-rooted and complex problems, Northern Ireland’s political leaders need to step back and ask themselves some very basic questions. Why did they enter politics in the first place? What hopes did they have for Northern Ireland when they were first elected? And who do they believe they represent: one community or all? In the ‘good times’, few politicians would likely have publicly admitted to anything other than entering politics to make a positive difference, to be optimistic for Northern Ireland’s future, and to represent all communities in Northern Ireland. These are easy platitudes to utter when there is little to cause disagreement. Now that times are far less straightforward than even eight years ago, they must reflect on these questions as they decide how to proceed.

However, these questions will not just be for politicians to ask of themselves: they are vital questions that voters must ask of their politicians when they next cast their ballot. Why do you think Candidate X wants to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Do they offer an optimistic vision about Northern Ireland’s future, with an ability to work towards it? And will they see the common good in terms of their community, or will they see it in terms of our shared society? If we are serious as a society about overcoming the normality of political crisis, then we must be sure to elect politicians with the will to overcome it.

 

Continuity and the Queen

On Wednesday Queen Elizabeth II officially became Britain’s longest serving monarch, more than sixty-three years after she acceded to the throne. Twelve different prime ministers have occupied Downing Street, and twelve different American presidents have occupied the White House. A YouGov poll released at the time of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 found that 73 percent of respondents think that Britain should continue to have a monarchy, perhaps in large part explained by the perception of 86 percent of people who think the Queen has done a good job during her reign.

Politicians come and go, and none could ever dream of a job approval rating of 86 percent. It is often said that the contrast between the Queen and politicians is that she is apolitical, and so is ‘above politics’. That is partly true. In a pretty fundamental way, however, the Queen has been an important political figure in her own right. She has served as a paradoxical figure who cannot simply say the things that other public figures say, but when she does say and do things, it is in a way that another public figure simply cannot.

On the one hand, she has symbolised continuity in a rapidly changing world and at times of political crisis. On the other, she has herself symbolised some of these important changes and helped to overcome political disharmony. The historian David Starkey recently remarked that the Queen has, “done and said nothing that anybody will remember.” He probably was not thinking about the Queen’s historic visit to Ireland in 2011. After greeting her guests in Irish at a banquet in Dublin Castle, she offered the following reflection: “With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all.” It was a strikingly simple sentence, but yet carried immense meaning against the backdrop of fast improving British-Irish relations. It did not just reflect these improving relations, but contributed to them too. That’s not a forgettable achievement.