Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. George Osborne's strivers have a shock in store (Guardian)

The £10bn of extra welfare cuts will hit the strivers the Tories are courting as much as the targeted 'shirkers', says Gavin Kelly.

2. Andrew Mitchell must step down (Daily Telegraph)

The Chief Whip is a walking, talking embodiment of everything with which David Cameron would least like his party to be associated, says a Telegraph leader.

3. The harmful myth of the balanced budget (Financial Times)

Critics of austerity sell themselves short by merely calling for a deceleration in deficit reduction, says Samuel Brittan.

4. The US is buzzing, but it’s a Wasp-free zone (Times) (£)

In 1992 all four presidential candidates were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, notes Ben Macintyre. That’s four more than this year.

5. Integration? The opposite is true in Jeremy Hunt's NHS (Guardian)

The latest healthcare buzzword means nothing, but growing privatisation is reported to be fragmenting services, writes Polly Toynbee.

6. What Doctors Don’t Tell You: There is something very wrong with our libel laws (Independent)

Our libel law protects the rich and the powerful, writes Simon Singh. It's time for a 21st century re-think.

7. Cameron’s toffs must convince the plebs they’re on their side (Daily Telegraph)

The Andrew Mitchell affair hides the fact that it is the Conservatives who are fighting class inequality, argues Fraser Nelson.

8. High-stakes choices for China’s leaders (Financial Times)

Changes at the top will shape the international order for decades, writes Philip Stephens.

9. Grubby deal that will harm British politics (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister should think long and hard before allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on Scottish independence, argues a Daily Mail editorial.

10. Gove's centralism is not so much socialist as Soviet (Guardian)

Instead of modernising, British schools stick with the same culture that saw a Nobel winner humiliated in class, writes Simon Jenkins.

 

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496