Norway's deadliest tragedy

Death toll rises to 91 as police discover more victims of Norwegian gunman.

The horrific attacks in Norway were initially thought to have claimed around 20 lives. But it's now clear that that figure was a dramatic underestimate. The latest reports put the death toll at 91, with seven killed in the car bomb attack in Oslo and 84 killed on the island of Utoya, where a man dressed as a police officer opened fire on a youth meeting of the country's Labour Party.

Many rushed to the assumption that the attacks were the work of an Islamist terrorist group. The New York Times reported that a group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad) had claimed responsibility, allegedly describing the attack as "a response to Norwegian forces' presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad". However, the paper later reported American officials as saying that "the group was previously unknown and might not even exist".

It now appears that the atrocities were committed by a lone right-wing extremist, leading Norwegian officials to conclude that the attack is "probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center." Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old Norwegian arrested in connection with both attacks, described himself on his Facebook page (now unavailable) as a conservative and a Christian. A Twitter account apparently belonging to him, featured this post from last Sunday: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." The decision to target the centre of Oslo, which houses the offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, as well as a Labour meeting, suggests that the motive was political.

Significantly, Stoltenberg, who was due to address the youth meeting today, has responded by calling for "more democracy, more openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence". No calls for revenge, no overblown rhetoric, just a quiet determination that this proud, egalitarian nation will go on as before.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.