Top 5 political funnies of 2011

Herman Cain doesn't know what he thinks about Libya, Ed Miliband thinks "these strikes are wrong", a

1. Herman Cain struggles to recall details of Libya conflict

Here is presidential hopeful Herman Cain unable to say whether he agrees with Obama's actions in Libya: "Got all this stuff twirling around in my head," he says to explain his confusion. Remember, this man wanted to be PRESIDENT. Of AMERICA. He has since suspended his campaign after a string of sexual harrassment allegations.

  

2. Ed Miliband tongue-tied on strikes

Oh, Ed. This video of Miliband repeatedly telling a BBC interviewer that "these strikes are wrong" and "both sides should get round the negotiating table and put aside the rhetoric" might be evidence of him staying on-message, but it did nothing to help him shake the 'weird' thing.

  

 

3. Rick Perry forgets which government agency he would axe

The Republican primaries were the gift that just kept on giving in terms of hand-on-forehead moments. Here is Texas governor Rick Perry struggling to recall the name of the government department he would axe if he was elected. It's a masterclass in how not to draw attention to your failings.

  

4. Miliband forgets name of Scottish Labour candidate

If the Republicans had more than their fair share of "oops" moments, so did the Labour leader. Here he is, unable to name all of the candidates for the Scottish Labour leadership.

 

5. Nick Clegg's on-mike gaffe

Let's not forget Nick "punchbag" Clegg being caught on tape confirming every Lib Dem's worst fear about coalition. "If we keep doing this we won't have anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates," he tells Cameron, after another chummy press conference. Of course, this was before the AV referendum and Europe came along to create trouble in paradise.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

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