Kirstyn Higgins | Political Editor
Critics of the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn couldn’t wait for the first opportunity to denounce him – and they didn’t have to wait long.
On the 15th September, Corbyn attended the Battle of Britain memorial service at St. Paul’s Cathedral, but managed to spark outrage by remaining silent during the national anthem. He has since been receiving criticism from politician and public alike, with many calling his actions “disappointing” and “disrespectful”.
So was Corbyn in the wrong?
It does seem ironic and frankly unfair that much of the public lambasting him would be the last people to proudly sing, “God Save the Queen.” But it is precisely this idea of hypocrisy that has angered so many people. Prior to the service, Corbyn released a statement marking the occasion, saying, “The loss of life – both civilian and military – should be commemorated.” For many, by failing to sing the national anthem, he has went against his own declaration. Double standards are never a favourable quality in a politician.
In response to the criticism, the Labour Party issued a statement saying, “Jeremy attended today’s event to show respect for those who fought in conflicts for Britain. As he said in the words issued this morning, the heroism of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain is something to which we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude. He stood in respectful silence during the anthem.”
Jeremy Corbyn has been attracting negative comment ever since he entered the House of Commons in 1983, some accusing that he looks less like an MP and more like a member of The Rolling Stones. This has followed him through to his position as Labour Leader, and it could fairly be said that for many, their criticism is based not on what he does, but rather who he is. Corbyn’s stance as a Republican is certainly no secret: so surely it was no surprise that he would have reservations about singing the national anthem? What is better, a leader who follows protocol and routine with the decorum and circumspection that one would expect, or a leader who is willing to stand by their beliefs, despite the consequences?
That is another question entirely.
