Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Mid Staffs report is right: NHS targets went too far (Guardian)

Without being knee-jerk or top-down, Labour must learn lessons from the failings at Stafford hospital, says Andy Burnham.

2. US must do more than focus on deficit (Financial Times)

A broader, growth-centred agenda is needed to propel the economy, says Lawrence Summers.

3. What a tragedy that we couldn't stop the war in Iraq despite marching in our thousands (Independent)

Forget the expenses scandal: it was Iraq that exploded what trust millions had in our political establishment, says Owen Jones. But the real anguish lies elsewhere.

4. Tories must keep talking about family values (Times

Ructions over gay marriage are no excuse for retreat, says Tim Montgomerie. Update social conservatism, don’t abandon it.

5. Barack Obama is pushing gun control at home, but he's a killer abroad (Guardian)

President Obama's appeals to respect human life in the US are at odds with his backing for drone strikes in foreign parts, writes Gary Younge.

6. This still won't pay the bills for elderly care (Independent)

It has to be asked whether ministers have not taken the coward's way out, says an Independent editorial.

7. Care, inheritance and penalising the thrifty (Daily Mail)

Not only has George Osborne held the inheritance tax threshold at £325,000 since the election, he now reportedly wants it frozen for another five years, notes a Daily Mail editorial.

It’s all down to taboo, mankind’s way of defining ourselves and avoiding chaos, writes Boris Johnson.

9. Cut off NHS head to save the patient (Sun)

Since NHS head David Nicholson refuses to do the decent thing, the Prime Minister must do it for him, says Trevor Kavanagh.

10. Scotland: Britain's real referendum (Guardian)

Bit by bit the arguments and terrain for the 2014 referendum vote are taking sharper shape, says a Guardian editorial.

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