Is a train completely full only when every seat is occupied by a live human being, or is a train full when all the seats are merely reserved (either officially, or unofficially through the strategic deployment of a handbag on an empty chair?) There are valid arguments on either side, but whilst being a worthy topic of at least several minutes’ debate on a slow Friday afternoon at work, it is clearly not one of the great political questions of our time. The fact that several days last week ended up devoted to every nuance of the dilemma is surely ludicrous. But despite its moniker, ‘traingate’ had almost nothing to do with trains. This was a story about integrity, and the questions it raised are more serious than they might appear.
Throughout the developed world, trust in politicians is at an all time low. It is right to emphasise the necessity of bringing honesty back into mainstream politics, as the Corbyn camp has long laid claim to – the alternative is a ‘post-truth’ world where blatant lies told by populists have the same credibility as anything said by more sensible voices. Voters just want to be able to say to their leaders – ‘I believe you’ and avoid the wearying process of having to strip every political utterance of suspected half-truths and exaggerations before deciding whether to swallow it.
But the price of laying claim to a rare honesty is that it creates a legitimate interest in whether that reputation is really deserved, and in particular whether Corbyn might spin a situation to score points just like everyone else. A politician who claimed to possess unique financial acumen because they had run a successful business in the past could expect to have every aspect of their commercial dealings examined in forensic detail, as Donald Trump has been finding out. Corbyn must expect the same in relation to the matter of integrity.
Corbyn has consistently been regarded as much more honest than any of this political rivals, and yet an Ipsos MORI poll carried out in mid August put his satisfaction ratings far behind those achieved by Theresa May. Why? Of course, the electorate is still effectively on its first date with May, projecting all their hopes and expectations onto a relatively blank canvas. As the prime minister starts to wrestle with the irreconcilable problems thrown up by the legacy of her predecessors, a more realistic view will start to emerge. However the qualities that voters currently ascribe to May – ‘serious’, ‘capable’, ‘tough’, ‘realistic’, ‘tenacious’, ‘balanced’, ‘smart’, ‘direct’, ‘confident’, ‘experienced’ – are a useful guide to what they are looking for in a good leader. Honesty does not feature in this list, though it is unlikely anyone views her as dishonest. Instead, many voters seem willing to believe that Mrs May is honest enough – and that she is competent. It is this combination that explains her positive poll ratings.
While honesty is an essential part of leadership, it is a foundation on which the many other components which make a good leader are built. On its own, honesty is not enough to let the electorate know that you are capable of looking after the country. Meanwhile, an incident like traingate is bound to happen again. Like a winning athlete, Corbyn’s claims to gold medal standard integrity will be repeatedly questioned and tested – and may become tarnished. If that happens then it raises the danger that there will be nothing else to fall back on.
———————————
Christabel Cooper writes a regular column on the Progress website
———————————