Come on, Nick. Seize the day

It's now up to the Lib Dem leader to kill the health bill.

Ed Miliband nearly got it right twice last week.

First he said the NHS Bill was going to be the Tories' new Poll Tax. Then he said the same bill could become another tuition fees debacle for the Lib Dems.

You can almost feel him groping for the right political analogy. He knows it's there, just eluding his grasp. So let me help him out.

Ed, you need to jam those thoughts together. The NHS Bill is going to be the Tories' tuition fees fiasco.

We know a bit about how this works in the Lib Dems. You make some promises. You associate yourself personally with those pledges. You even start running advertising assuring everyone that everything is safe in your hands. And then, when you're in power, you do the complete opposite. And the electorate crucify you for it.

Admittedly this has taken a little longer to pin on the Tories. I wrote a year ago, when reforms were first introduced, that this would happen and have been bemused ever since that folk haven't been more livid that the promise of "no top down reorganisations of the NHS'" appears to have been a bit of a fib. Especially when the likes of Andrew Mitchell go on the BBC and assert (as he did yesterday) that Andrew Lansley had been planning this for 5 years in opposition. (Given how things are panning out, I use planning in the loosest of terms).

I guess when, generally speaking, the country has such a low expectation of a Conservative politician keeping a promise, it takes longer for the anger to really sink in than it did for us Lib Dems, for whom people really did have higher hopes.

Which brings me to the little matter of redemption.

A couple of weeks ago it looked like Cameron was going to seize the day, drop the NHS bill, fire Lansley, and paint himself as the man who saved the NHS. There was an open goal there. For some reason he didn't take it. Who knows - maybe he really does believe in the reforms. Wouldn't that be a turn up?

Anyway, Cameron welded himself firmly to the Bill. Which means there is a vacancy going for a political leader willing to grasp the nettle, kill the bill and save the NHS. Ed Miliband would love to take it. But he of course, has no power. No, it needs someone who could actually stop the Bill, negotiate some sensible compromises with the Tories and Labour - everyone agrees some changes would be a good thing - and go some way to restoring the faith of a nation in their political acumen. And their principles.

Hey, Nick. Carpe Diem.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

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