Angela Rayner should be praised to the skies for apologising for calling Tories ‘scum’
The full apology – from which the apologiser undertakes to learn and be better – is a priceless thing, writes John Rentoul
It is easy to be cynical about Angela Rayner’s belated apology for calling Conservatives “scum”, which is presumably why half of the social media response to it has been so graceless. But the other half has been warm and supportive, praising the deputy Labour leader for reconsidering her words, and sympathising with her grief.
Rayner is on bereavement leave from the House of Commons at the moment, after the death of someone she thought of as a mother to her, according to Keir Starmer. She said in her statement yesterday: “While I have been away from the cut and thrust of parliament I have reflected on our political debate and the threats and abuse that now seem to feature all too often.”
She also thought again about her comments at a fringe event at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last month, and said: “I would like to unreservedly apologise for the language I used, and I would not use it again.”
That is a proper apology, as opposed to her words in Brighton, four days after the event, when she said: “That’s me, I’m bombastic, and I apologise if it offended the public in the way in which I expressed it.” That was a standard non-apology apology. Saying sorry “if it offended” those poor delicate flowers who don’t understand working-class plain speaking is not saying sorry at all.
Nor did it impress the general public, who disapproved of her language, with working-class voters disapproving of it more than middle-class ones.
Now, a month after the event, she has done the right thing, with a full statement suggesting that she has learned from the experience and will change her behaviour: “I will continue to speak my mind, stand up for Labour values and hold the government to account. But in the future I will be more careful about how I do that and in the language that I choose.”
Doing and saying the right thing is what matters, and it would be wrong to try to second-guess her motives. Of course, a full, unreserved and reflective apology will help to restore her reputation after an error of judgement lowered it in the minds of most people outside the circle of hyper-partisan Labour supporters who cheered her insults at the time. But we cannot see into Rayner’s heart, and if she says she has learned a lesson and will use more respectful language in future, then that is the test we should hold her to.
It shouldn’t matter that it took her a long time to accept the error of her ways. Nor should it matter that it wasn’t her first offence, or the first time she has apologised for it. A year ago she audibly heckled a Tory MP in the Commons, calling him “scum”. She apologised at the time: “I apologise for the language that I used in a heated debate in parliament earlier.” It wasn’t a non-apology but it was perfunctory.
This time, we are entitled to believe that it will be different. Insult, abuse and a coarsening of public debate were not the cause of Sir David Amess’s death, but his killing did demand that we pause to consider the cost to our democracy of the burden borne by politicians, their families and staff of the physical risks, death threats and abuse.
Rayner herself has had a bad time with threats aimed at her and her family, and part of her statement dealt with them. A man was given a suspended sentence yesterday for sending her a threatening email.
So she is in a good position to make the connection between the language she used and the threats and abuse she has experienced. Let us hope that she builds on the insight she has now acquired.
She could even say that, having reflected even further, she now accepts that Conservatives are not scum and that, however strongly she disagrees with them, she respects them for putting themselves forward to serve the public, just as she puts herself forward. She could use the power of her example to help persuade those hyper-partisans who applauded her words that they were mistaken and that they need to approach politics in a different spirit.
The full apology from which the apologiser undertakes to learn and be better is a priceless thing, and we shouldn’t seek to devalue it by speculating about the sincerity behind it. I thought Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, deserved a second chance after it was reported in 2016 that she had previously reposted an antisemitic post on Facebook. She apologised, said she had been “ignorant”, and promised to work with Jewish organisations to help educate fellow Muslims about antisemitism.
She too is well placed to make the connection between her own mistakes and the threats and the abuse MPs receive, as yesterday, in another court, a man admitted sending her death threats and is now awaiting sentence.
Rayner’s and Shah’s apologies and promises to learn from their experiences help preserve the respectful debate on which democracy depends, and they deserve unstinting credit for it.