Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. How to defuse the bonus bomb in one move (Times) (£)

Simon Wolfson argues that the riskier a bank's business, the less it should be allowed to pay staff. That's fair to shareholders, taxpayers and savers.

2. Don't put venture capital at risk (Financial Times)

John Gapper warns that the industry is on the same threshold that both banking and private equity crossed before, with unintended consequences.

3. The rule of law in Britain is diminished by the furore over efforts to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan (Daily Telegraph)

The British parliament has lost sight of the noble principles that Strasbourg has upheld, says Peter Oborne.

4. Call Strasbourg's bluff: send Qatada home (Times) (£)

Camilla Cavendish argues that Britain must stand up for itself as the European Court of Human Rights interferes in affairs well beyond its remit.

5. Angela Merkel needs all the help she can get (Guardian)

Few had anticipated the leadership dilemmas of a European Germany in a German Europe, says Timothy Garton Ash.

6. Run the NHS better or scrap it -- but give up reforming it (Independent)

"Patient choice" is largely a myth, says Steve Richards -- unless we pay for half-empty hospital wards.

7. Ignore the soporific jargon. Privatisation is a race to the bottom (Guardian)

The outsourcing of state services always leads to workers being paid less, says Zoe Williams. Instead our leaders call it an "efficiency saving".

8. US Presidential campaign: Never has the good news sounded so bad (Daily Telegraph)

Anne Applebaum says that the sudden growth of the US economy spells trouble for Democrats as well as Republicans.

9. Where Wukan has led, Beijing won't follow (Financial Times)

Village protesters in China will not unnerve the state, says David Pilling.

10. Sweetheart tax deals aren't for the little people (Independent)

Andreas Whittam Smith suggests that Harry Redknapp's problem was that he was a private individual and not a large company.

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