Statecraft as a Straightjacket: A Reply to Gamble and Hayton

Assessing the Performance of UK Opposition Leaders: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Straight Talking, Honest Politics’

“…As Griffiths (2015) indicates, statecraft raises a number of methodological and epistemological issues for political scientists. Bulpitt construes politicians as 'office-seekers' intent on winning power: in ontological terms, this implies a limited and exclusive definition of politics which neglects other elements of political behaviour (Griffiths, 2015, p. 4).…”

“…It is not only 'party leader images' that are decisive, but partisan identification and how far the party is trusted to manage the economy (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, & Whiteley, 2011). Corbyn rejects the emphasis given to electoral success as a measure of leadership performance; 'statecraft' approaches encourage an ontologically narrow view of politics (Griffiths, 2015). If Corbyn struggles to make progress on the criteria of electability and prime ministerial credibility, he has energised thousands of supporters while striving to alter the dominant discourse with his commitment to 'straight talking, honest politics'.…”

Political leadership as statecraft? Aligning theory with praxis in conversation with British party leaders

“…First, the body of work that he wrote was light, often unpublished and sometimes contradictory, claimed Rhodes and Tiernan (2013), arguing that he was ‘no system builder’. Second, Griffiths (2016: 738) has argued that statecraft theory reduces ideology and values to ‘a means for gaining power’, but this is an over-simplistic account of the complex motivations of leaders. For him:this does not seem to ring true as an explanation for the role of ideology in politicians’ lives … it does not simply seem to be the case that ideologies are no more than instruments to be picked up, tried and dropped at will, in a bid to win elections.…”

“…For him:this does not seem to ring true as an explanation for the role of ideology in politicians’ lives … it does not simply seem to be the case that ideologies are no more than instruments to be picked up, tried and dropped at will, in a bid to win elections. (Griffiths, 2016: 738)…”

“…Third, the approach has been criticised for being untestable. Griffiths (2016: 739) argues that ‘politicians rarely chose to describe their actions in terms of Statecraft, preferring to provide other grander justifications for their actions’. Researchers therefore defend a statecraft account despite contrary evidence.…”