Warsi: Huhne may stand down regardless of court verdict

The Conservative co-chair says that Huhne's Eastleigh seat is a "target" and the Tories would "fight

Chris Huhne has already withdrawn from the cabinet as he faces trial for allegedly perverting the course of justice -- and now it appears his Conservative coalition partners already have their eye on his parliamentary seat, even though the outcome of the trial has yet to be decided.

In an in-depth interview with The House magazine, Sayeeda Warsi, the co-chairman of the Conservative Party, has said that she is readying the Tories for a potential by-election fight in Eastleigh:

The party is ready for any by-election at any time. When a by-election is called in Eastleigh then of course we will kick in to action.

Note the use of "when", not "if". She added:

It is a target seat and I think we would fight it hard and we would fight it to win. I don't think the Lib Dems are dug in there. It's winnable. We will do everything we can to win it.

Last month, Guido Fawkes reported that 2,000 Tory party activists were dispatched to Eastleigh just two days after Huhne's court appearance. The Eastleigh Conservative Party insisted that the surge was to do with upcoming local elections rather than a potential by-election, but the timing was difficult to ignore. Warsi said that she has already been campaigning in Eastleigh, recently appearing at an event for local members.

Warsi -- not known for her discretion -- took the unusual step of suggesting that Huhne could step down even if he is found innocent. While she acknowledged that the outcome of the trial is yet to be decided, she said:

The by-election could be called because, you know, Chris might stand down irrespective of what happens at the court case.

The Tories have hardly been supportive of Huhne, who is accused of persuading his ex-wife Vicky Pryce to take his penalty points for a speeding offence nearly ten years ago. In February the Daily Mail reported that David Cameron told attendees of a Tory ball for wealthy donors: "we had to speed to get here on time. It's a good job Samantha was driving -- or at least, that's what it says on the forms!"

In response to Warsi's comments, a Lib Dem spokesman said: "Chris Huhne is denying the allegations against him, so talk of a by-election is extremely premature." The Times (£) quotes an unnamed Lib Dem source saying that the suggestion that Huhne could stand down even if found innocent "display[s] a slight lack of knowledge of Chris".

Huhne denies all allegations and is next due in court in May. While his thoughts may be on the pending trial, perhaps he should also be keeping an eye on the activities of the coalition partners already eyeing up his grave.

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