Angela Rayner’s views on shooting suspects are monstrous

Ryan Coogan, The Independent

The idea of “supporting” a political party has become something of a quaint relic of a bygone civil discourse. Conversations about politics are now often framed as self-preservatory rather than optimistic; support X, because Y will ruin your life. Sure, candidate one isn’t great, but candidate two will eat your children.

We saw it with Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson, even the referendum, where one choice was painted by large swathes of the population as the lesser of two evils, instead of a tangible improvement to the state of political play.

Up until recently in the UK, this argument has worked in favour of Labour: sure, we aren’t inspiring, they tell us, but at least we aren’t explicitly evil. However, as the next election draws nearer, Labour seems determined to turn the choice between itself and the Conservatives from an ethical binary into a moral coin flip.

Speaking on Matt Forde’s Political Party podcast, Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner quipped that when it came to the issue of dealing with terrorists, her stance is to “shoot your terrorists and ask questions second”. She said this to demonstrate one of the ways in which she was on a “different page” to former party leader Jeremy Corbyn when it comes to the issue of criminal justice.

I believe her when she says the two aren’t on the same page. I don’t even think they’re reading from the same book. Corbyn is reading the 2019 Labour manifesto, and Rayner is reading hastily scrawled graffiti on a toilet cubicle at UKIP party HQ. The two aren’t even in the same galaxy, it seems, politically or morally.

After making the statement, Rayner acknowledged that her comments were “controversial,” but a better word might be “negligent,” or even “monstrous.” Suggesting that due process should be suspended for any crime, no matter how severe, is always wrong, not least because it risks punishing innocent people. This was exactly the case in 2005, when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot and killed by police after being wrongly suspected of participating in that year’s London Underground bombings; a case that Rayner could not have been unfamiliar with, as it involved recently disgraced police chief Cressida Dick, who was forced out of her role by a member of Rayner’s own party just days earlier. It was certainly the case during the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, the 50th anniversary of which was commemorated just two weeks before Rayner was interviewed.

Likewise, her suggestion that shooting is an acceptable punitive measure for certain offences is alarming. The UK outlawed capital punishment in 1964, because we recognised that it isn’t an especially effective deterrent for violent crimes, because we kept hanging innocent people by mistake, and also because murder is wrong. That last point really doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that should need to be pointed out to a potential future leader of the UK, but I guess it’s been a crazy few years.

Rayner’s comments drew parallels to an interview earlier in the week, in which shadow minister Steve Reed said that Labour would consider “naming and shaming” drug offenders if elected. Like Rayner, Reed’s comments hint at a new vindictiveness in the Labour party towards potential criminals; the goal of the party seems now to be less about improving the circumstances under which crime happen, and instead irreversibly destroying the lives of those who are suspected of participating in it. The question then, is why?

The answer, unfortunately, may be simpler than many of us would care to admit. The UK, despite its international image of reserved politeness, is a country whose political systems operate on cruelty and vindictiveness. As shocking as they may seem to some of us, Rayner’s comment’s echo the beliefs of large swathes of the British public.