tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/hilary-benn-23166/articlesHilary Benn – The Conversation2016-06-26T16:10:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/616452016-06-26T16:10:25Z2016-06-26T16:10:25ZCorbyn must go – Labour needs to choose a new leader wisely, but quickly<p>With accusations that he didn’t give 100% to campaigning for remaining in the EU over the past few months, and resignations coming thick and fast from <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36632956">multiple shadow cabinet members</a>, it’s increasingly likely that Jeremy Corbyn will need to stand down as leader of the Labour party. All parties need to choose their leaders wisely, but in the chaos of the post-Brexit political meltdown, Labour needs to be extra careful. </p>
<p>If a leadership election is held, it’ll take place in the context not only of a Conservative leadership battle, but in an increasingly hostile climate of debate – not just on the referendum result itself, but on the process and terms of the UK’s withdrawal. </p>
<p>Labour’s leadership election procedures require candidates to be nominated initially by their fellow MPs. That means the people currently renouncing their support for Jeremy Corbyn will be the ones selecting the field of candidates to stand against him. Only once these overwhelmingly pro-Remain MPs have made their decisions will the party membership be able to choose its next leader.</p>
<p>And even though many core Labour voters in the party’s heartlands <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-newhttp:/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-heartlands-give-huge-backing-8271074s/labour-heartlands-give-huge-backing-8271074">voted overwhelmingly to leave</a>, only ten Labour MPs publicly campaigned for Brexit. And none of them have been touted as future leaders. </p>
<p>So the next Labour leader will inevitably come from the Remain side, but will be tasked with winning back the support of voters who turned against the party on Britain’s most consequential political decision for generations. They’ll need to take a careful line on the EU – one that doesn’t isolate Labour Brexit voters and focuses on getting the best outcome for the UK.</p>
<p>Any new Labour leader will also need to be installed pretty quickly. The Conservative party dogfight to choose the next Prime Minister will be deeply acrimonious and may overshadow the Labour leadership debacle.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that there’s now a gaping chasm in terms of opposition in British politics. That presents an irresistible opportunity for the second opposition party: the SNP. </p>
<p>After a strong start following last year’s general election, the SNP MPs in Westminster have proven themselves to be everything that Labour is not. They are supremely co-ordinated, united and cohesive. Their few hiccups (such as the suspensions of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-resigns-party-whip-over-missing-donations-claims-a6747426.html">Natalie McGarry</a> and <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13791520.SNP_MP_Michelle_Thomson_suspended_from_party_as_police_launch_inquiry_into_property_deals/">Michelle Thomson</a>) have been quickly forgotten and, on the whole, they’re still coming across as a group of committed, passionate politicians who are highly active and well respected in the House of Commons chamber. </p>
<p>What’s more, at a time when the referendum result is being interpreted as a sign of growing discontent with a seemingly out-of-touch <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36458369">political elite</a>, they echo the down-to-earth style of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. As the only party to be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946">united</a> in its position on EU membership, the SNP will be looking to capitalise on the chaos within the Labour Party to cement its already strong position at Westminster. This could give it the extra bargaining power they want as they try to secure the best post-Brexit deal for Scotland – and of course, in the push for another referendum on Scottish independence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The end of a sorry chapter for Labour is nigh – but the next is being written on the hoof.Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/546612016-02-12T16:26:14Z2016-02-12T16:26:14ZBrexit: fear won’t win over undecided voters<p>Hilary Benn, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35550651">warned</a> that a Brexit would play into the hands of Vladimir Putin. Speaking in London about the forthcoming EU referendum, Benn sought to make a patriotic case for keeping the UK in the European Union.</p>
<p>But this speech had none of the rhetorical flourish of Benn’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tale-of-two-speeches-how-labour-divisions-were-laid-bare-in-syria-debate-51764">House of Commons performance</a> last year, when he made a passionate case for military intervention in Syria. Nor did he address widespread concerns about the EU that resonate with many (Labour) voters who are minded to vote for Brexit.</p>
<h2>A matter of security?</h2>
<p>Benn’s speech was certainly thoughtful. He rightly condemned “narrow nationalism” and warned that Brexit would significantly diminish the UK’s position and influence in the world. Membership of the EU acts as a force multiplier, enabling London to shape the globe’s single biggest economic space and conclude multilateral trade deals. “And Britain is always at its greatest when we are a confident and outward-looking trading nation,” said Benn.</p>
<p>Close co-operation with European partners, he argued, is also vital for dealing with big problems that need collective action – from terrorism, to crime, to climate change. </p>
<p>One of his most convincing arguments was about EU-wide agreements on employment rights – including paid holidays, improved maternity and paternity leave and limits on working time. This has not just convinced the trade union movement to back Europe but also prevented “a race to the bottom that globalisation, left unchecked, could bring”.</p>
<p>Benn also drew a connection between economic and national security. He said Europe’s twin promise of prosperity and peace after the two world wars was a great achievement that should “never be taken for granted”. This led him to argue that the EU, alongside <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/nato">NATO</a>, is key to protecting Europe from the current threats of terrorism and Russia’s actions in Ukraine.</p>
<p>But the pro-Europe campaign needs to be stronger on these crucial questions. To warn that Brexit would play into the hands of Putin is to make a negative case for staying in that is unlikely to mobilise undecided voters.</p>
<p>Surely it is much more persuasive to suggest that Britain in the EU can help defend European civilisation against the forces destroying Syria and Iraq and now taking over Libya?</p>
<p>Benn is certainly right to lament the civilian casualties of Russia’s bombing campaign, but he himself said in his now famous House of Commons speech that Islamic State is the fascism of the 21st century that needs to be defeated.</p>
<p>Russia’s game-changing intervention has provided some military leadership in a situation where the West’s strategy was muddled. It has prevented the collapse of the Syrian state and taken the fight to IS and the other terrorist groups that benefited from the support of Western allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Whatever disagreements the UK has with the Kremlin, the fight against IS in Syria requires determined cooperation across the whole of Europe, and that includes Russia.</p>
<h2>Wrong audience?</h2>
<p>An opportunity may have been missed here to engage both outers and undecided voters who have legitimate concerns about the EU. This is particularly true for many (former) Labour supporters who have been left behind by the global economy and technological change – people who left school early and lack academic or vocational qualifications. Continued EU membership can help address both economic uncertainty and cultural anxiety – widespread fears that certain values and ways of life are threatened by the forces of transnational markets.</p>
<p>The places where Labour is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405">doing well</a> tend to be much more pro-European. These are the metropolitan areas in England, especially London and Manchester, as well as the towns and cities of Wales. But everywhere else Labour is struggling, and this often coincides with places where people are more eurosceptic.</p>
<p>Benn’s speech could have acknowledged more strongly that the unity of both the UK and the EU is under growing strain from the forces of globalisation, nationalism and the effects of migration. Faced with the prospect of further devolution to Scotland and growing EU centralisation, many English voters are increasingly worried about national sovereignty. Even if Britain votes to stay in the EU, a vote to remain might reinforce English euroscepticism – we saw a <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2935/35-years-of-Scottish-attitudes-towards-independence.aspx">surge in support</a> for the SNP following the referendum on Scottish independence.</p>
<p>Unless Labour speaks to these concerns, it is hard to see how it can escape unscathed from the referendum debate, never mind start winning back trust and support from those whose vote it needs to get back into power. Benn is right to try to make a positive, patriotic case, but he could have done it more forcefully.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54661/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Pabst does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour’s shadow foreign secretary says leaving the EU would play into Russia’s hands. Ordinary Brits worry more about their jobs.Adrian Pabst, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527782016-01-06T15:41:31Z2016-01-06T15:41:31ZLabour reshuffle: why Benn was kept in Corbyn tent, while others were cast out<p>After one of the most protracted reshuffles in recent years, the new shadow cabinet has finally been announced. Michael Dugher was first to be sacked from his position as shadow culture secretary and, more than 12 hours later, Europe spokesman Pat McFadden went the same way. </p>
<p>Emily Thornberry, who <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34244215">opposes</a> the Trident nuclear deterrent alongside Corbyn, has been brought into the fold as the new shadow defence secretary, replacing the pro-Trident Maria Eagle, who has been demoted to shadow culture secretary.</p>
<p>Even after taking more than <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-01-05/more-than-30-hours-of-suspense-over-labour-reshuffle/">30 hours</a> to reach his decisions, Corbyn faced an immediate backlash. Kevan Jones, the shadow minister for the armed forces, has already <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/06/labour-reshuffle-mcfadden-says-he-was-sacked-for-criticising-apologists-for-terrorism-live#block-568d0e72e4b02440900e1902">resigned</a>
, citing his support for Trident. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"684716024764170240"}"></div></p>
<p>Another two front benchers – <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35243133">Stephen Doughty</a> and <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/shadow-minister-stalybridge-hyde-mp-10692704">Jonathan Reynolds</a> – have also quit in protest over McFadden’s sacking.</p>
<p>The key element of the reshuffle is not who has been sacked, though. It’s who hasn’t been. And the name on everyone’s lips is Hilary Benn.</p>
<h2>Out of options</h2>
<p>The tricky situation in which Corbyn found himself was somewhat inevitable. He is surrounded by a Parliamentary Labour Party that largely doesn’t support him or his policies, yet he received a massive mandate from those voting in the Labour Party leadership contest. Corbyn needs to create a strong, cohesive, loyal shadow cabinet to fight his corner and sell his policies to the party and the public at large. </p>
<p>However, this is directly at odds with his personal history. As a left-wing MP in a centrist party during the Blair and Brown years, Corbyn became a rebel, repeatedly voting against his party leader and the party’s accepted policies.</p>
<p>When he became leader, Corbyn said he wanted a new kind of politics. He wanted to be inclusive and allow members of his cabinet to express their opinions and discuss issues freely.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the management of a major political party in the UK does not suit factionalism. Voters and supporters of any political party require unity of purpose and policy. Rebellion signals troublesome infighting and often leads to electoral disaster.</p>
<p>The recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-parliament-votes-to-bomb-islamic-state-in-syria-so-what-will-that-mean-internationally-51678">debate</a> on airstrikes in Syria brought this into sharp focus. Corbyn spoke passionately of his opposition to war but only a little later, Benn, shadow foreign secretary, stood up from the same bench to give the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tale-of-two-speeches-how-labour-divisions-were-laid-bare-in-syria-debate-51764">speech of his life</a> in support of the attacks. The question for Corbyn was what to do about the obvious dissent in his ranks.</p>
<p>The answer was somewhat clearer in terms of Maria Eagle. Her support for Britain’s nuclear deterrent immediately put her at odds with Corbyn and his supporters. It was only a matter of time before that made her job untenable.</p>
<p>But her removal, while fairly straight forward in party management terms, has raised huge questions over the credibility of the front bench, particularly with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/north-korean-nuclear-test-suspected-as-artificial-earthquake-detected">reports</a> of North Korea detonating a nuclear weapon overnight. The timing could not be worse for Corbyn and the suggestion from his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/06/mcdonnell-labour-reshuffle-end-dissent-front-benches">shadow chancellor</a> that opponents somehow temporarily move to the backbenches to express criticism of the leaders is, at best naive, and at worst, completely ludicrous.</p>
<p>That logic certainly hasn’t been applied to Benn. He has become such an important and influential figure within the Labour Party that Corbyn faced a difficult reality. Did he want a strong shadow cabinet colleague who would, on occasion, feel able to speak out against the views of his leader and perhaps the wider shadow cabinet or did he want such a big beast roaming the backbenches, taking potshots at the leadership at will?</p>
<p>Corbyn appears to have concluded that keeping Benn in post was the lesser of the two evils. Press reports overnight indicate that Benn’s survival may have been linked to a deal not to speak out against the leader, but this seems a little unlikely. Benn’s speech during the Syrian airstrikes debate was delivered knowing the views of his leader and the trouble which his dissent could bring. He did it anyway and his profile profited enormously. Why would he stifle his conscience and remove his own freedom of speech in order to become a puppet shadow foreign secretary now?</p>
<p>Corbyn has attempted to secure his position by strengthening his shadow cabinet and drawing in those who are ideologically similar to him. This may be problematic as it appears that the shadow cabinet is becoming increasingly separated from the wider Parliamentary Labour Party, which might lead to disaster in the future. Damage is already being done if opinion polls on the party and the leader are to be believed.</p>
<p>The rhetoric of a new type of politics seems to now only partially apply. Corbyn expects Labour MPs to do as he says, not as he has previously done.</p>
<p>Hilary Benn remains a key party figure, but how long can he continue when his views on foreign policy are so at odds with those of his leader? Surely that will depend on his support within the party. He could easily begin to fade and any loss of support would make him vulnerable. More likely, Benn will continue to be a thorn in Corbyn’s side, as his supporters, of whom there are many, wonder whether he wouldn’t make a better leader.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Honeyman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Frontbenchers are quitting in protest but the Labour leader’s biggest problem is still Hilary Benn.Victoria Honeyman, Lecturer in British Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/517642015-12-04T10:07:14Z2015-12-04T10:07:14ZA tale of two speeches: how Labour divisions were laid bare in Syria debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104275/original/image-20151203-30781-cs5mhl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hilary Benn, in the middle of his "tour de force" speech.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">UK Parliament</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the British parliament debated whether to bomb Syria, it became clear just how divided the Labour party has become. No doubt many commentators will claim that this shows that the party is “in disarray”, “hopelessly split” and “all over the place”. But it might also be that allowing members to openly disagree on sincerely held opinion about a complex issue could be seen as a sign of maturity in a political party.</p>
<p>Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was right to agree to a free vote. But his management of the Syria situation lacked a sure political touch. Too often <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-air-strikes-on-syria-jeremy-corbyn-writes-letter-to-labour-mps-explaining-why-he-cannot-a6750421.html">initiatives</a> were taken without consulting the shadow cabinet or senior frontbenchers. In the shadow cabinet meeting prior to the vote accusations were made that Corbyn and his office had handled matters in an inept and needlessly divisive way.</p>
<p>Labour was, as expected, far more divided than the Tories – but contributions from both proponents and opponents of airstrikes were, for the most part, thoughtful, sombre and measured. A total of 66 Labour MPs voted with the government, which was on the higher side of expectations. </p>
<h2>Hilary and Jeremy</h2>
<p>The debate was in many ways a tale of two speeches. Corbyn’s was honest and earnest, but somewhat lacking in coherence. It was, frankly, pedestrian. In contrast, his shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, delivered what has been called <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/first-uk-airstrikes-syria-deal-real-blow-isis-michael-fallon">“an oratorical tour de force”</a>, a speech that was fluent, impassioned and compelling.</p>
<p>The effect, whatever the intention, was to set in stark the relief the contrast between a seasoned politician of high calibre and his well-meaning, but less impressive, boss.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m_dRCzd19Uc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Benn silences the chamber.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem is that underlying the debate over Syria is a deepening, intensifying and ever more acrimonious fissure between the Corbyn leadership and the bulk of the parliamentary party. Some of the division is about policy but much is over perceived weaknesses in leadership, management and communication. Opponents think Corbyn lacks the skills, experience and aptitude to effectively execute leadership of the party.</p>
<p>Further, some of his critics have argued that Corbyn has destabilised relations with the Parliamentary Labour Party by inviting rank-and-file members to <a href="http://labourlist.org/2015/11/full-text-of-momentums-draft-letter-to-labour-mps-about-airstrikes-on-syria/">apply pressure</a> against MPs who back intervention in Syria. Few would query the proposition that constituency Labour party groups should have a voice in how their parliamentary representatives cast their votes, but what has caused very considerable ill-feeling has been widespread suspicion that Momentum, a recently-formed group of Corbyn supporters, orchestrated a campaign to pull MPs into line – with the threat of <a href="http://order-order.com/2015/12/02/labour-mps-threatened-with-deselection-ahead-of-syria-vote/">deselection</a> if they failed to do so.</p>
<p>There have also been allegations by MPs in favour of air strikes of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447">abuse and intimidation</a> on social media – but since this seems to be the preferred style of social media discourse perhaps too much should not be made of this.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"672036209808527360"}"></div></p>
<p>So is Corbyn’s leadership imperilled? Perhaps not immediately. But what if Labour performs poorly in the whole batch of elections taking place next spring? What if it continues to trail well behind the Tories in the opinion polls? What if, above all, the wider public’s negative image of him has congealed to such an extent that it cannot realistically be dislodged?</p>
<p>If so, many will be wondering if there is anyone else available who could both hold the party together and appeal to a wider public as a capable, articulate and effective leader. Perhaps some might recall that <a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-new-prime-minister-who-is-justin-trudeau-and-how-did-he-win-48792">in Canada</a> a few months ago the son of a famous father (Pierre Trudeau) revived his party’s faltering fortunes and, against the odds, triumphed at the polls. Anyone like that in the UK?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51764/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Shaw has received funding from the ESRC. He is a member of the Labour party. </span></em></p>Hilary Benn’s powerful intervention is bound to have some people thinking about the future of the party.Eric Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/517602015-12-03T17:06:06Z2015-12-03T17:06:06ZFull marks for oratory, but Hilary Benn gets a C in history for Syria speech<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104284/original/image-20151203-22448-1kw82j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Benn gave an interesting reading of the Spanish Civil War.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_International_Brigade_during_the_Spanish_Civil_War,_December_1936_-_January_1937_HU71509.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So began the final moments of shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn’s <a href="http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/full-text-of-hilary-benns-extraordinary-speech-in-favour-of-syria-airstrikes/">speech</a> to the British parliament as it debated whether to enter the fight against Islamic State in Syria.</p>
<p>This was a speech delivered by the quiet man of the Labour frontbenches with steely determination and emotive appeal. But perhaps most importantly it was a plea to certain historical traditions designed to sway Labour colleagues to vote for the airstrikes.</p>
<p>The effect was electric. MPs on both sides of the House applauded and cheered. Not since <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg8dsvnqcda">Tony Blair’s final Prime Minister’s Questions</a> in 2007 has such a spontaneous bipartisan ovation occurred. Benn’s impassioned body language and the ranging timbre of his voice hushed the house. It was a memorable piece of parliamentary oratory.</p>
<p>However, like most effective political speeches it required a certain degree of artistic licence with the historical record and the stretching of historical analogies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m_dRCzd19Uc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Benn silences the chamber.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The key component to the final flourishes of Benn’s speech was his reclaiming of the Labour Party’s internationalist tradition. This was achieved by evoking the volunteers who joined the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and by equating Islamic State’s ideology to fascism:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are here faced by fascists … And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco… And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, the politicised use of analogical reasoning is not a new phenomenon. How many times have we heard warnings of “another Munich” when dealing with dictators, or interpretations of the Iraq War as “another Vietnam”?</p>
<p>However, over the past decade, these comparisons have become far more politicised. These days, analogical reasoning is less a tool to help politicians make decisions and more a tool for helping them justify decisions they’ve already made. It has become a self-serving process.</p>
<h2>The Islamo-fascist fallacy</h2>
<p>Sure enough, advocates and opponents of British military action against Islamic State have attempted to deploy historical metaphors to bolster their arguments. Benn is the latest in a long line of people to harness anti-fascist analogies during debates about Islamist terrorism.</p>
<p>In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, Francis Fukuyama coined the phrase “<a href="http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/5653067/their-target-modern-world">Islamo-fascism</a>” to describe the ideology of al-Qaeda. The response to al-Qaeda, Fukuyama reasoned, must constitute an all-encompassing mobilisation of liberal democratic forces. The Nazis were defeated with bombs, not because their beliefs fell apart – and the same would be true for this new enemy.</p>
<p>Yet the simplicity of the Islamist/Fascist analogy is misleading. It encourages us to believe that all threats to Western security can be discouraged by annihilation. It is blind to the huge cultural and religious variations between Nazism and Islamism. It ignores the fact that Nazi Germany was a state-based actor using conventional weapons, whereas Islamic State fighters are non-state actors (albeit with the pretensions of statehood) who deploy insurgent tactics. Then there is the totalising nature of World War II versus the precision targeting of modern terrorist groups.</p>
<p>The Islamist/Fascist analogy is used in order to try and make sense of an unfamiliar, indeed frightening, present by relating it to a familiar, perhaps reassuring, moment from the past when the West was shaken but ultimately vanquished its enemies.</p>
<h2>A very modern speech</h2>
<p>Contemporary political communication rests on a fundamental desire to control the narrative of events. Politicians strengthen their narratives by using (or abusing) historical metaphors to encourage the public to make certain connections. If a historical event is commonly conceived of as just, then its modern-day equivalent must be too.</p>
<p>Metaphor creates imagery, which has a potent power of persuasion – something Hilary Benn’s speech <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1598885/benns-truly-historic-speech-silenced-commons">evidently exemplified</a>. Unfortunately, the speech also rested on a misguided set of historical assumptions.</p>
<h2>The Spanish myth</h2>
<p>It has been a common intellectual trend to perceive the high levels of intervention in the Spanish Civil War as a foretaste of the wider struggle between fascism and its opponents that would engulf Europe in 1939.</p>
<p>Antony Beevor, in his book on the Spanish Civil War, went as far as to label it a “world war by proxy” given how the quantity of external intervention was indicative of the fomenting ideological struggles that the wider continent was experiencing.</p>
<p>This is exactly why Benn’s Spanish analogy missed its mark. Labour Party members in the 1930s had to volunteer as private citizens to join the ranks of the anti-Franco militias. That was precisely because the British government proposed no direct military action itself. A non-intervention pact prevented Britain from propping up the democratic government in Spain.</p>
<p>The decision of individual Labour Party members to join a proxy war in Spain in the 1930s stood in stark contrast to the ability of the Parliamentary Labour Party to foment any direct military intervention. The central argument of Benn’s cri de coeur was actually to engender the exact opposite outcome to Spain – don’t rely on proxies because we should fight as a nation against the threat.</p>
<p>An impassive Jeremy Corbyn watched on from the seat behind Benn during this speech. Not since Robin Cook at his rambunctious best has a Labour Foreign Affairs spokesman been so strikingly independent of his party leader. Benn’s speech was a wonderful reminder of the power of political oratory. But stretched historical analogies need not be the price paid for effective speechmaking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51760/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Mumford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The shadow foreign secretary certainly impressed when debating intervention in Syria – but he gave an odd account of the Spanish Civil War.Andrew Mumford, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.