Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Everyone thinks David Cameron has screwed up over the EU - except for the voting public (Independent)

The main story this week for journalists has been the Conservative decision to stage a case study in disunity - but is that what most interests the public, asks John Rentoul.

2. David Cameron must not cave in to the UKIP threat (Daily Telegraph)

For his own sake and that of the country, Cameron has to make the case for staying in the EU, says Peter Mandelson.

3. History is more than one thing after another (Times)

Whether its art, books or political ideas, arranging things in strict order of time is not as logical as it looks, says Philip Collins.

4. The truth is that we can’t afford a shiny new transport system like HS2 (Daily Telegraph)

History is littered with failed projects that appealed to politicians in thrall to modernity, writes Fraser Nelson.

5. The flight paths of Britain and Poland diverge in a disunited Europe (Guardian)

Poland is eyeing a place in the group of leading EU nations just as Britain seems to be leaving, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

6. Britons want more work – let’s help them (Financial Times)

There is very substantial spare capacity in the British economy, writes Samuel Brittan.

7. Xenophobia in Italy bodes ill for migrants right across Europe (Independent)

Today's battleground is on the right to citizenship, writes Peter Popham.

8. France: waiting for Godot (Guardian)

A pressing task for Mr Hollande is to persuade a French audience he is capable of pulling his country out of its torpor, says a Guardian editorial. And on that test, he is failing

9. Brass Tax (Times)

The government must lead efforts to change cross-border tax rules that are being exploited by the multinationals, says a Times editorial.

10. Leaving Europe would be bad for British business (Guardian)

We must not lose sight of what's important – economic growth, says John Cridland. This means maintaining access to, and influence over, the EU.

 

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