The best thing about the Lib Dems? We do our fighting in public

Osbornomics, tuition fees, Trident, the 50p tax rate, nuclear power. Whatever you think of the Lib Dems, you can’t say we hide our debates away.

So, a former minister of state has announced she won’t stand again for election in protest at the leader who sacked her (with half the membership yelling 'disaster' and the other half muttering 'on your bike'); the party president has been making big cow eyes at the Labour leader, while our Home Office minister has been doing similar to the Conservatives. There appears to be a Christians vs. the Lions debate raging in the party. Oh, and Matthew Oakeshott says Nick should resign.

It can only be conference week for the Lib Dems.

And what a corker of a conference awaits, with rows galore on the horizon. Of course the main event is the economic debate on Monday, with Nick summing up in an argument that’s been billed as Osbornomics vs. Plan B. The Social Liberal Forum has mobilisaed to defeat the leader, Nick’s rumoured to have performed what’s known as the 'Shirley Williams manoeuvre' to get Vince in as air cover. But no one seems to know for sure if it's true, or who is actually going to lead the debate. All we do know for sure is: There Will Be Blood.

And that’s just for starters. Members are being invited to give tuition fees their blessing (fight), recommend the introduction of porn filters (fight), keep Trident (already looking like the leadership’s retreating), back the bedroom tax (fight), bring back the 50p tax rate (Mr. Farron says Yes, Mr. Laws says no…). The list seems endless. Oh, hang on I’ve forgotten nuclear power. And Europe.

And it all happens in the full glare of the media.

You can keep your set piece speeches, fake debates and backroom deals. Whatever you think of the Lib Dems (and after a couple of years blogging here, I’ve a fairly clear idea), you can’t say we hide our debates away.

They’re full on, frank and there for all to see. There’s no conference quite like it. And deep down – I bet you’re all a bit jealous. 

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

Nick Clegg and Vince Cable during a visit to the Ricardo Engine Assembly plant on September 24, 2012 in Shoreham-by-Sea. Photograph: Getty Images.

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