Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. On Europe, David Cameron is in danger of making himself a laughing stock (Guardian)

After Michael Gove's intervention, the question of an EU referendum has never been more serious for Cameron, writes Tim Bale.

2. Red Ed’s only hope...new ‘Blue Labour’ (Sun)

Ed Miliband’s party already has a tailor-made set of beliefs that tackle head on the alienation and anger behind the UKIP, writes Tom Newton Dunn.

3. Be warned George Osborne: more home owners just really means higher unemployment (Independent)

An increase in people acquiring property cuts labour mobility and the number of new firms, warns David Blanchflower.

4. The Bible Belt is becoming a force for good (Times)

Ignore the caricatures, says Tim Montgomerie. American Christianity is pushing the Republican elite to be more Walmart than Wall Street.

5. We must be ready to leave the EU if we don’t get what we want (Daily Telegraph)

There are pros and cons to staying in Europe – and it’s time to talk about them, says Boris Johnson.

6. Is Labour ready to turn the state upside down in 2015? (Guardian)

The party's policy review suggests fundamental changes to the public sector – to square the circle of cuts and growth, writes John Harris.

7. Cameron must show how arming Syria's opposition would secure a lasting peace (Independent)

Neither arming the rebels nor military strikes can guarantee peace in a country where sectarian, tribal and democratic impulses are all present, writes Douglas Alexander.

8. Lawson is right about the UK and Europe (Financial Times)

A departure need not be a disaster if the terms are negotiated with skill, writes Wolfgang Münchau.

9. Tory Euro shambles lets Labour off hook (Daily Mail)

Labour and the Lib Dems are escaping scrutiny of their own hopelessly out-of-touch positions, says a Daily Mail editorial.

10. Appeasing the Taleban would be a fatal error (Times)

The militants regard peace talks as weakness, writes Anatol Lieven. Pakistan’s new leaders must fight or surrender.

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