Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron’s incurable European headache (Financial Times)

This is where the irresistible force of rising Tory europhobia meets the immovable object of geopolitical reality, writes Philip Stephens.

2. It’s too early for the Tories to assume defeat is inevitable in 2015 (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron could be a transformative leader if he had more faith in his power to change minds, says Fraser Nelson.

3. Algeria spills more blood (Guardian)

The violent end to this standoff is only the start of a new chapter in the country's savage history, writes Nabila Ramdani.

4. Don’t reject a referendum, Ed. Fast-track it (Times) (£)

The Labour leader should seize his chance to appeal to British business and voters, says Philip Collins. He must offer an in-out vote now.

5. Mali is not a global conflict. It doesn't require a global response (Independent)

The notion of a global threat from a revived al-Qa'ida should be familiar by now; it's the same flawed reasoning the led the US to launch its "war against terror", says Adrian Hamilton.

6. A living wage, or a much higher minimum wage, is worth paying (Daily Telegraph)

As City profits soar, the low-skilled, service areas of the economy continue to suffer a fall in income, writes Jeremy Warner. Radical action might avoid a social catastrophe.

7. A funny way of firing up the locomotive (Financial Times)

Now and in the interwar period, austerity policies have often failed in their own terms as they have made deficits worse, writes Samuel Brittan.

8. Mr Cameron and the speech that never was (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister is confronting one of the most crucial issues of our times while Ed Miliband has nothing useful to say, argues a Daily Mail editorial.

9. Hugh Gaitskell: New Labour's old roots (Guardian)

Tony Blair never acknowledged the influence of his most like-minded predecessor, who died 50 years ago this week, says a Guardian editorial.

10. Why today’s American presidents need a third term (Independent)

There are compelling reasons why two four-year terms may not be enough for a competent and popular US president today, writes Mary Dejevsky.

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