George Osborne's Conservative fringe appearance: 10 things we learned

Including, his parents were non-Tory voters and Gordon Brown is the only politician "he found it impossible to have a civil relationship with".

It's been a while since anyone called George Osborne "the submarine" - and with good reason. The man previously known for surfacing only for set-piece events and retreating under water at the first sign of trouble, has become one of the government’s most visible faces. In the last year, he has made a series of high-profile speeches on the economy, taken the fight to Alex Salmond in Scotland, and braved the world of Twitter. The morning after the government’s defeat over Syria, it was the Chancellor who led the counter-offensive on the Today programme.

After his strikingly personal speech to the Conservative conference yesterday, in which he referenced his children and his parents (seen by many as preparing the ground for a future leadership bid), Osborne made a rare appearance on the fringe at lunchtime, speaking to Channel 4 News's Gary Gibbon. Here are ten things we learned.

1. His mum has voted Labour and his dad used to vote Liberal but both now vote Conservative.

2. Gordon Brown is the only politician "he found it impossible to have a civil relationship with".

3. He believes the Tories "never really" worked out how to deal with Tony Blair, "the master of the political landscape", and "need to understand why he was appealing".

4. He conceded of the 2012 "omnishambles" Budget: "in my job you're not supposed to make those political miscalculations."

5. After pledging in his speech to achieve a budget surplus by the end of the next parliament, he has not decided whether to continue to ring-fence health and international development spending.

6. Nigel Lawson's children helped persuade him to move his family to No. 11 Downing Street.

7. He sees himself as "a social liberal, small 'l'" and cited his strong support for equal marriage and gay rights.

8. He "does not want to run the election campaign" (Osborne is still officially the Tories' chief election strategist), "which is why we've got Lynton Crosby in. I was the one who approached him."

9. While refusing to comment on his reported leadership ambitions ("I'm not going to fall for that"), he believes that as Chancellor he has "an obligation to get out and about".

10. Michael Gove joked (brilliantly) of his new hairstyle: "you've applied your economic policy to your hair. You've turned it around to stop the recession."

George Osborne delivers his speech to the Conservative conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of 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