My slant on the week

 

Obama powerless on guns, but still taking a lead

You could hear the anger in his voice. The frustration. The weariness. America has a gun problem, and its president knows it. Many of its legislators know it too, but they are too feeble to act in the face of interest group pressure, not least from the National Rifle Association. But it is the legislators who have the power to strengthen gun regulation; the President cannot.

Holding a press conference in the wake of the latest tragedy in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama condemned the “routine” nature of mass shootings in the United States. It isn’t just the shootings themselves that have become routinized: reactions to them have become so hopelessly predictable too. Beyond expressions of regret, it seems safe to say that nothing else will happen.

Something needs to happen. In 2013, there were 33,636 gun-related deaths in the United States. That amounts to 10.64 per 10,000 of the population. In the UK in the same year, there were 727 deaths caused by guns. That amounts to 0.23 per 10,000 of the population. If you do the math, that’s more than 46 times less than the death rate by guns in the US.

“Our thought and prayers are not enough,” insisted President Obama. With Congress controlled by the Republicans, Obama knows that he is powerless to act on the basis of his own limited formal authority. He also knows, however, that sometimes power can be about more than formal authority. Using what Theodore Roosevelt called the presidential ‘bully pulpit’, it is clear that the President intends to do focus not on persuading Congress of the need for increased gun control, but on persuading the American public directly. If he is successful his congressional opponents, many of whom are vocally pro-life, will find it increasingly difficult to ignore that life is worth protecting outside of the womb as well as inside it.

 

Corbyn shot down by Shadow Cabinet

In the end, the Labour Party Conference wasn’t quite the showdown that some commentators had been expecting, or hoping for. Jeremy Corbyn’s first as leader was rather uneventful, and his speech offered nothing that we haven’t heard before from his leadership campaign rallies.

Instead, it was after the Conference that we were reminded of the substantial fissures that presently exist among Labour MPs. Trident had been removed from the agenda at Conference, but he announced the day after it ended that he would not use it if he were Prime Minister.

This announcement caused a bit of a stir, not least within his Shadow Cabinet. Maria Eagle, Shadow Defence Secretary, described Mr Corbyn’s remarks as “unhelpful.” Further criticism came from the Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn.

In many ways, however, it is difficult to see how Mr Corbyn’s remarks represented ‘news’. It is well known that he is a committed pacifist and categorically opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. Should we really be surprised that he would rule out using them if they were ever in his hands?

Part of Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘new politics’ is about having a ‘discussion’. This is refreshing for grassroots party democracy, but it is also a tumultuous headache for traditional understandings of leadership. Mr Corbyn hardly aspires to being traditional in his style of leadership, but if senior members of his own Shadow Cabinet openly undermine his public remarks it is not just Jeremy Corbyn’s style of leadership that is undermined, but so too is his leadership in any sense of the word.

 

Leading by resigning?

There are many things in Northern Ireland politics that are beyond ridiculous. The most recent example is the ‘hokey cokey’ strategy of the Democratic Unionist Party. At first it seemed like a clever procedural escape route. Rather than the DUP walking away completely from the Executive in protest at recent alleged IRA activity, it decided to withdraw all of its ministers (bar one) on a week-by-week basis. That way, it can avoid being accused of pulling down Stormont outright and still say that it isn’t all ‘business as usual’.

However principled and procedurally clever its protest, in practice the DUP’s behaviour is farcical. In particular, it is the absence of the Health Minister, Simon Hamilton, that has prompted the most widespread criticism. Hospital waiting times are increasing while healthcare staff are coming under increasing pressure to deliver for patients. The NHS in Northern Ireland is not in a healthy state, and many of its fundamental problems have persisted over at least the last three decades.

What a time for the health service to have nobody running it. And it’s not just public healthcare that is in limbo. With an ongoing crisis over welfare reform, a severely under-invested transport infrastructure, and the highest unemployment levels out of the UK’s twelve regions, no minister is currently in charge to deal with any of these problems.

Speaking on The View with the BBC’s Mark Carruthers on Thursday night, Mr Hamilton said that he wanted to be back at his desk. I suspect he realises that his own party’s tactics are senseless and counterproductive.

To exercise leadership is a privilege, and never comes with any guarantee of success. Ask President Obama. Ask Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps in a few years’ time. At least they are trying to make the most of the possibility of leadership. To have the opportunity to exercise leadership and choose not to do so is a foolish waste. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better, much better.