I started
out this particular blog post to try and suggest some answers as to why we have
ended up in such a mess over the Brexit process (because the road to the
decision is a strange and dark one, and I have talked about it enough. In
particular to look at the behaviours of the two main political party leaders in
the UK. They have, in my opinion, both shown a lack of leadership and this is
at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in.
I have already spent a lot of time
on the first part of this blog considering how Theresa May has fared against a
relatively common set of leadership characteristics:
- · Integrity – not just being honest, but being seen to be honest, and doing the right thing even when you can get away with doing the wrong thing
- · Courage – in making decisions, even unpopular ones, with limited information, and willing to address difficult points
- · Impartiality and fairness – not pandering to special or favourite causes, identifying the fairest outcome for everyone from a situation
- · Good communication – in both directions, able to explain their message so others get it with clarity and conviction, and able to listen to others and hear their points
- · Flexibility and responsiveness – able to alter not only their plans and direction, but their style to achieve their outcome, and able to listen to other people’s ideas and use the best one, not simply their own
Against which time and again she has been found wanting, and badly ( https://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-importance-of-appearing-in-control.html ). But surely it is only fair to consider Jeremy Corbyn by the same yardstick? The great man of principle who is very much beloved of party members (if not entirely by his parliamentary labour party) must hold these qualities in spades?
Its much harder to cover the entire process for the
opposition leader. Firstly he has had very little (i.e. nothing) to do with the
formal process. I will therefore focus on a few key points in the process where
he had opportunity to show leadership. Specifically: in the immediate aftermath
of the referendum result; the vote on Theresa May’s deal and calling and
holding the vote of no confidence.
I remember after the vote itself being completely shocked,
saddened and well, scared the following few days. This was a fundamental shift
for our country. I had always been European as well as British and English,
with family, friends and work colleagues across Europe and here from Europe.
I’ve worked as an accountant and seen the millions of pounds of EU money coming
in to areas of the North East desperate for regeneration. I’ve studied
Economics and understood the absolute logic of being part of trade blocs.
This was a body blow to me and many others. We were dismayed
and confused. What we needed was calm, a chance to re-group and get used to
this. Instead we got a Prime Minister running away from the problem he had
created and a leader of the opposition calling for an immediate invocation of
article 50. There were two massive problems with this immediate approach.
Firstly, Corbyn had a long history of concerns over being
members of the EU and expressing a desire to leave. He belatedly became an
advocate for staying. Throughout the campaign he had stayed away from the main
campaign to avoid standing with David Cameron (his reason). Calling for this so
quickly immediately left his integrity open to question. It doesn’t matter
whether he was being genuinely honest or not. Its whether people see you as
being honest. This approach damaged his integrity. Coupled with repeated
questions on which way he voted that he refused to answer, he was opened up by
his detractors and across the press as lacking integrity.
Secondly, what we needed was calm and a chance to come back together as a nation after a referendum campaign that had been divisive and nasty. But it appeared that this opportunity to make political capital, and to put pressure on the conservative party was more important. It is really hard to see the fairness in that – putting party politics ahead of doing the right thing. Both of these issues stemmed from a man who was no longer listening to the pulse of the country, and a man who had failed to get out his message.
Of course many Corbyn supporters (and I class myself as a supporter) will point out that it is hard to communicate when you have large parts of the press against you. This hasn’t happened over night. There has always been an image of him portrayed by his detractors. It didn’t suddenly appear. The narrative he has been wrapped in is made to measure. But the reason it fits so well is that decisions he makes and how he communicates absolutely lend themselves to it. It sometimes feels like there is a conspiracy to ruin his credentials – and that conspiracy is made up of the Conservative party, right wing media interests and Jeremy Corbyn.
I absolutely get that Jeremy has painted his life as a man of integrity, and a man of principle. There can be no question that he has made difficult and unpopular decisions based on a strong moral sense of right and wrong. Once he has decided what he feels is the morally right thing then he sees it through.*
I absolutely get that Jeremy Corbyn is unwilling to change. He’s made a career out of purposefully choosing the other view – almost for fun. He makes a snap decision on evidence at the time and sticks with it come hell or high water. This “man of principle” is so addicted to being morally right that he can’t accept when he is wrong or things change.*
(*Delete as appropriate)
And therein lay the problem. Because his behaviour and the way he acts and delivers his message can be played both of those ways. In order to be an effective leader you must be able to communicate and be flexible. You have to be responsive and aware. Sometimes sticking to your guns and your tried and trusted methods because you have always been that person is actually the counter to integrity – not the embodiment of it. Jumping into the trap laid for you over and over again shows a lack of flexibility, responsiveness and communication skills.
We’ve seen this behaviour in the House of Commons over the
last few weeks. In fact both Corbyn and May have been guilty of the title of
this blog – wanting to appear in control rather than wanting to be in control.
When Theresa May lost, as she knew she must, the vote on her badly-won, self-serving, ill-communicated, cowardly deal she immediately challenged Corbyn to bring forward a motion of no confidence in the government. Everyone knew he had to. But to her mind this was her showing the world she was still in charge. If anybody other than May and Hammond believe she is still in control of events then please send them my way – I have a second-hand bridge over the Thames I would like to sell them. However it gave her a chance to remove the initiative from him.
When that motion failed, as he knew it must, Jeremy Corbyn immediately rebuffed May’s offer of talks without his pre-conditions were met. Again, this was an attempt to show he was now in control and would only meet on his terms. Whilst this has now proven to be correct, and that the talks were merely Mrs. May trying to sell her original deal, only in smaller groups and with coffee and biscuits, this was immediately played in the press as Mr. Corbyn refusing the outstretched hand. It could not have been more clearly a trap if the prime minister had read it from a card marked ACME on the back. Because it is how he is expected to react and unfortunately no flexibility or learning is allowed.
I do worry for Brexit and our immediate future. We have days left now until we crash out without a deal. The leaders of our political parties, whilst having very different policies, views and desired outcomes, appear very similar in their approaches. Once the referendum result came in, any opportunity for coming together as a country was lost. Both leaders have allowed their own personal views and animosity along with political calculations to stop them from doing what we need most. Which is actually lead.
