Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. A political fight set to reach well beyond Britain's election (Financial Times)

Philip Stephens says that the tensions within Tory ranks are visible and that the price of winning will be higher than David Cameron thinks.

2. We don't need this culture of overwork (Independent)

Johann Hari warns that Britain's culture of long working hours is damaging the health of its population. He calls for a French-style 35-hour week.

3. Christelle and her baby died at the hands of a callous state (Guardian)

Jenni Russell argues that the suicide of a single mother shows a welfare state unable to respond to human need.

4.. These plotters lacked both common sense and principles (Independent)

Diane Abbott says that the "coup" leaders spent so long in the New Labour bubble that they forgot they were members of the Labour Party. And she argues that the big loser from this week is David Miliband.

5. The supermarkets must be brought to heel (Daily Telegraph)

The big supermarket chains threaten farmers' livelihoods and must be tightly regulated, says Charlie Brooks.

6. The worth of a pint (Guardian)

Richard Reeves criticises the "new temperance leaders" for ignoring the significant benefits of alcohol.

7. May I introduce the bloody-minded Icelanders (Times)

Roy Hattersley says that Iceland's threat to default on its debt to Britain should come as no surprise.

8. They are right to ban the burqa, even if it is for the wrong reasons (Independent)

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown argues that Europe should follow France's lead and "rethink a garment" that cuts women off from other citizens.

9. The world must not let Sudan return to war (Financial Times)

Lazaro Sumbeiwyo and John Danforth warn that without international assistance, Sudan may slide into civil war again.

10. Unknown unknowns (Times)

A leader in the Times warns that the risk of a double-dip recession is real but that no further fiscal stimulus is possible.

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