Reflections on the Corbyn Prime Ministership

Written shortly after Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party but it took me a long while to edit it and sort it out. As is inevitable when writing something so specific on something current, I think it's already got a little bit dated. Still, might make for an interesting read. About 2,250 words.

“Just a speculative fiction. No cause for alarm.”

‘A Speculative Fiction’, Propagandhi.

Reflections on the Corbyn Prime Ministership

Election, Struggles and Resignation

The election of Jeremy Corbyn was probably the most surprising result in Britain’s recent electoral history, easily surpassing John Major’s unlikely victory over Neil Kinnock. Having reneged on his promise to resign (never being a politician to ensure that his actions were consistent with his words), Cameron was the incumbent who, though unpopular, had convinced the media and a great deal of the population that the austerity agenda was a necessary one. Meanwhile, Corbyn represented a stark alternative and one that, though popular among a large number of people, did not seem to have gathered sufficient momentum to secure victory in the general election of 2020.

However, more than his policies, it was Corbyn’s understated personality that appeared to be the decisive factor in his success. In contrast to the spin of New Labour and the regular breaking of promises from both Cameron and the Liberal Democrats (from their time in a coalition – a decision that was probably decisive in their relegation to ‘just another minority party’), Corbyn’s sincere approach to politics, his willingness to quickly concede to errors and inaccuracies of statistics within his talks, and his refusal to snipe at his critics – both in opposing parties and within Labour – was largely considered a breath of fresh air.

Corbyn then, incredibly got in on a message of hope. It was just a question of whether the hope lay upon a socialist, democratic alternative to the neo-liberal consensus or if it was simply the hope of a politician with apparent integrity and human decency. From polling it seems to be the latter, for while there seemed to be mixed views about Corbyn’s proposals, he regularly received high approval as an individual – probably helped by such facts as his impressively low expenses bill (less than £10 on a printer cartridge) during a time when politicians were seen as a largely greedy collective willing to exploit the benefits available to them as far as legitimately (and sometimes illegitimately) possible. By contrast, Cameron’s policies were largely accepted as ‘realistic’ or ‘necessary’ in polls and were therefore supported, significantly if grudgingly, by a great deal of the British population. But while there might have been support of his proposals for dealing with the deficit, people did not like Cameron in the way they liked Corbyn; Cameron’s approval rating rarely reached a third, while Corbyn’s approval never went under 50%.

So, arguably, the hope was placed more in Corbyn the man in his politics. This was just as well because Corbyn was to find implementation of his Keynesian agenda thoroughly, if unsurprisingly, complicated. The media maintained their campaign in opposition to an alternative to austerity. The critics were the messengers of doom at their most apoplectic and apocalyptic. Other business interests lobbied with renewed vigour. And while Corbyn may have been given a mandate by the people, he did not have the backing of the majority of his party, let alone the majority of the House of Commons (to say nothing of the House of Lords, which Corbyn had hoped to reform – another eventual failure). Government was a frustrating and frigid affair for Prime Minister Corbyn. An energetic social movement was turning stagnant in the reality of political process. Economically, Corbyn was able to implement few changes and even then the pressure internally and externally (from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund) made the situation almost untenable. With these difficulties considered, it is perhaps unsurprising that Corbyn resigned after two years as Prime Minister, that the Labour party then capitulated and split and that a new election took place – with an almost equally interesting result.

In hindsight, Corbyn’s brief time as Prime Minister could be considered a surprising but ultimately irrelevant blip in British politics. However, while he may not have done much within Britain, his impact outside it was monumental. And it was all to do with a significant predecessor.

Corbyn and the Shift in Global Politics

The support for Corbyn came from a number of different groups: the disillusioned Left, especially those that had worked with other fringe parties (the Green Party and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, most significantly); the disillusioned non-Left just looking for an alternative; the trade unions; and many political activist groups of various agendas. Most significant among these groups was the Stop the War coalition, an organisation that Corbyn helped found and that he chaired before his election as Prime Minister. Corbyn’s position within Stop the War meant that the man and the movement fed into each other.

Corbyn’s stance clearly emphasised a foreign policy that was unlike anything that the Labour or Conservative parties had ever offered before. Cameron had continued to highlight Britain’s role in international affairs, supporting Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s policies across the Middle East and Africa. Meanwhile the Labour Party’s policies had been divisive – both within the party and with the public. Most significantly, the Iraq war that began in 2003 has been highly controversial and became an albatross around the party’s neck. The war had been considered an issue of resignation at the time for some members of the party and voting in favour of the war was considered a toxic smear on a politician’s reputation. It was the defining moment of Tony Blair’s career as Prime Minister and it plagued him in his future work.

Corbyn had never been supportive of the Blairite agenda and was strongly opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, clearly evidenced through his prominent position within Stop the War. The organisation represented a key part of Corbyn’s outlook and became a notable part of his support. The Stop the War movement had been a consistent voice of dissent from 2003 but its significance had dwindled to a minor faction after its failure to dissuade the government from launching an attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Instead it had attached itself to other groups critical of government spending policies, arguing that money would be better spent on things other than arms budgets (especially in relation to the matter of Trident renewal) and questionable foreign interventions. However, Corbyn’s announcement to apologise for the Iraq war was to set an incredible set of events in motion.

During the time from Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader until his election as Prime Minister, Stop the War began to increase its profile, support and influence. While this did not apply pressure to Corbyn into actions against his will, Stop the War helped to create, emphasise and maintain an anti-war narrative. By the time Corbyn was elected, scepticism of Britain’s previous approach to force in international politics had reached unprecedented and unimagined heights. Out of Stop the War, the War Justice Movement was born.

Tony Blair had been officially considered exonerated by the long-delayed Chilcot inquiry. However, public opinion was still that Blair had been disingenuous about his motives. Most people still believed that his actions leading up to war had been wilfully deceitful and unwaveringly determined. Before he became leader, Corbyn speculated on the possibility of Blair facing the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Such suggestions had been made by many fringe groups and individuals but very few genuinely believed such a thing was possible. However, the War Justice Movement was not only vocally powerful; it also had a very sympathetic ear. This encouraged and invigorated the idea that past actions should be more accounted for. The arrest and trial of Blair was still largely considered ludicrously unlikely. However, seemingly against all odds, six months after being elected, Corbyn had responded to the movement’s demands and Tony Blair was arrested and on trial for war crimes.

If the possibility of a trial was believed to be slim, the idea that a guilty verdict could be decreed was regarded as pure fantasy. If the supposed complexity of case was not enough (the question of whether Tony Blair intentionally lied appearing impossible to prove), Blair was an institution in his own right, an untouchable part of the establishment. A political powerhouse with a controversial but ultimately respected Prime Ministerial legacy, Blair’s work as a Middle East envoy working for peace, while inevitably derided by his critics, reinforced his stature on the international stage.  The condemning of Tony Blair’s actions was likely to create such a dramatic shift in global politics that it was unfathomable that it could be a reality.

The court case was long and complicated and this is not a review of Blair’s trial. Rather it is a review of the impact of Corbyn’s time as Prime Minister. So, in crude summation, the guilty verdict that was returned rested on this point: the UK (along with the United States – though this did not matter as Bush was not indicted by Hilary Clinton nor, unsurprisingly, her successor John Ellis (Jeb) Bush) was responsible for an unprovoked and unwarranted assault on another sovereign nation. The war was not supported by the United Nations and the evidence in the dossier was similarly unsatisfactory to the UN. The information presented was not sufficiently scrutinised and, even if corroborated, Saddam Hussein had not threatened the US or the UK, nor had he suggested he was unwilling to cooperate with further UN inspections. Ultimately, therefore, the pretext for war was insufficient in the view of the Court and unjustified aggression had indeed long before been defined as a war crime.

Blair was sentenced and imprisoned. (His declarations that ‘God will be my true judge’ and that he felt in his heart that he was right was noted by commentators,  drawing an almost amusing parallel with Saddam’s refusal to recognise the Iraqi court that had condemned him). After Blair’s trial, the political shift in international relations began to take place. With the election of Jeb Bush in 2020, the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK became unbearably strained. After Blair was charged, Corbyn argued that the UK needed to recognise that it could not function in the ways it had done previously and that armed intervention was not within its remit. US/UK relations effectively ended when the UK unilaterally left NATO – a move praised by Russia and that further inflamed the fury of the US President. Since Corbyn, Britain has appeared to accept that its leaders can now be held accountable for their actions internationally. This attitude has seeped into the US and, though this hasn’t led to the trial of any US presidents, the level of public action and scrutiny – especially in relation to public dissent towards foreign intervention – has certainly held back the US’ military hand on occasions. Therefore, US interventions became increasingly difficult and clandestine, and less frequent. Along with the continued (though awkward and unsteady) rise of China and India, the US found itself greatly struggling to maintain the same level of influence.

The US did manage to continue its support of Israel and offer it some protection. However, without the backing of the UK (Corbyn was a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights), the international mood was becoming increasingly critical. Ultimately, despite the intensified condemnation, the Israel/Palestine situation has changed little, though a major change in the region now seems possible.

Excepting the continued US interference in the Middle East, its influence beyond was clearly restrained. Whether this improved matters is an ongoing argument and certainly open to debate. Some countries within Asia and Africa did descend wildly into violence but, while many remain in disorder with appalling human rights records, many others have flourished into democracies with a comparatively progressive politics appearing to develop across both continents. The radical group known as ISIS still has areas of power but in many places it has been pushed back by people aware of their nation’s increased autonomy and reduced oppression. However, these areas remain unstable and are vulnerable to being overtaken by more authoritarian forces.

The impact of Corbyn’s actions and their effect on global politics is still being explored. It is possible that a reversal to old relationships and orders could take place but this appears unlikely. It seems to be that the world is entering a new era where, though far from free of war, the most powerful nations are withdrawing from conflict.

In Summation

Corbyn’s Prime Ministership was a brief history of continuous surprises. His victory appeared unlikely and, once elected, few foresaw a resignation less than half way through his time in power (some predicted Corbyn’s resignation immediately after his election but such arguments disappeared after the first six months of his term). Many were surprised by his ineffectual domestic record. However, all were stunned at the arrest, trial and imprisonment of Tony Blair. Beyond this event, the chain of events and changes that have taken place in global politics appears to be creating a complete restructuring of how the world is run. Change often appears slow in international politics when it is in the middle of its shift, so it is difficult to fully assess the impact. It could also end up being that very little change truly occurs. However, the most sensible prediction appears to be that national sovereignty is going to be strengthened and that hard power politics will be largely a thing of the past (at least, until the next unexpected crisis). Many people approach this prediction with scepticism. But if Corbyn’s legacy has taught us anything, it is that we should expect the unexpected. For this has been the Corbyn narrative: an unassuming man responsible for some rather alarming changes.