After the protracted, what was in the end only a mini
reshuffle of Labour’s front bench team, the dust finally seems to have settled.
I think it is fair to say that the reshuffle was an object example of how not
to do one, and what I can only imagine was a deliberately neglectful media
strategy, was becoming embarrassing. But
more of this later.
Certainly in the media, and I dare say in Corbyn’s inner
circle, Hiliary Benn was the main focus of attention. The media, with the backing
of the Tories have built Benn up after his pro-bombing Syria speech in
Parliament, as an alternative leader of the Labour Party. The media loves to
make these things into a clash of ‘personalities’, and it had been trailed since
before Christmas as a ‘revenge reshuffle’ and so on.
Benn was eventually confirmed as carrying on in his post of
shadow Foreign Secretary, after what appears to be some kind of gentleman’s
agreement between Corbyn and Benn, but the details have not been made public.
Corbyn’s team quickly spun the decision as Benn being made to follow Corbyn’s
lead on foreign affairs, but Benn stated that he would not be ‘muzzled’ and would
carry on as normal.
I watched Diane Abbott on BBC TV Newsnight refusing to
answer directly the question of what Benn had agreed to do, or not do. All she
kept repeating was that Labour members expect to see their spokespeople
speaking for the policies they had voted for in electing Corbyn as leader, or words to
that effect.
Only time will tell, if whatever agreement was reached
between Corbyn and Benn, will satisfy both parties in practice, particularly as
the bombing of Islamic State in Libya is the next likely clashing point, and I
suspect it will not survive such an issue as that.
If we are to believe what we have seen in the media, maybe
as many as a ten shadow Cabinet members were prepared to resign if Benn was
sacked, which would have caused a big problem for Corbyn, and this is maybe why
he decided to fudge the issue. Maybe better to just sack one largely unheard of
member of the team, and a couple lower down the shadow ministerial chain, move
Maria Eagle from Defence, only minor resignations, buy some more time?
The other factor of course, is Corbyn himself. He is a
genuine guy, and he really does want to practice a new politics, as observed
with the complete disregard of managing the media operation surrounding the
reshuffle. Unfortunately, the media do matter in politics, and whilst not
pandering to them, they need to be manipulated a bit back, not ignored. It all
looked a bit shambolic.
Politics though is a dirty game, particularly at the level
Corbyn is at now, there are no Marquis of Queensberry rules in politics, and if he
doesn’t toughen up, he is probably finished.
I think he may have been better to have got over the
resignations and fired Benn if he was unprepared to tow the leadership line in
matters of Britain’s foreign military interventions. Corbyn was right to think
that we can’t have another occasion like the bombing of Syria debate, where the
leader and foreign policy spokesperson are arguing against each other.
It was reported at that time that Benn threatened to make
his speech from the back benches if he was sacked and again Corbyn drew back.
If he had sacked Benn this week, he would be a thorn in the side on the back
benches, but surely this would be better than contradicting Labour from the top
table?
It was a risk to keep Benn and also to sack him, but on the
balance of probabilities, I think, Corbyn has probably stored up more trouble
for the future, rather than less, by keeping him in the leadership team.
No comments:
Post a Comment