Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Why living costs and the deficit matter (Financial Times)

The party that persuades voters it can deal with both issues will win the election, says Gavin Kelly.

2. We need more homes, not easier mortgages (Times)

Cameron is right to focus on the family but Tories must not be afraid to unsettle the housing market, says Tim Montgomerie.

3. A conservatism is spreading that the Tories can't fathom (Guardian)

The party's neoliberal leaders are out of touch with exactly the kind of values that look likely to define our future, says John Harris.

4. I’m happy for my party to link with the Tories (Times)

UKIP has transformed the Conservatives, writes Nigel Farage. A deal with like-minded MPs makes sense.

5. We can’t afford welfare for disabled people, but apparently we can afford a marriage tax break (Independent)

This marriage tax allowance is nothing more than the state tutting at those who do not meet its expectations, writes Owen Jones.

6. The real reason the left's so livid about tax breaks for marriage (Daily Mail)

Labour's fury with the PM is mere displaced anger that the public's on his side, says Dominic Lawson.

7. A Syrian solution to civil conflict? The Free Syrian Army is holding talks with Assad's senior staff (Independent)

A secret approach to the President could reshape the whole war, writes Robert Fisk.

8. Leaders must speed up on climate change (Financial Times)

Businesses will watch governments to check they understand the IPCC findings, says Nicholas Stern.

9. Ed Miliband in power would be like a turbine on a windless day (Daily Telegraph)

It is astounding that people are falling for the opposition leader’s Wonga-like offer, writes Boris Johnson.

10. This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience (Guardian)

The party's real motive is to create a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and reward or punish people accordingly, writes Tanya Gold.

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