Con-Dem policies home to roost

AFTER the Oregon shooting of 2015 that left nine dead, including the killer who turned a gun on fellow students, US president Barack Obama wasted no time confronting the issue.

“Prayers are not enough,” he said as he called for stricter gun controls. “This is something we should politicise,” he argued.

Just as Obama was right to tackle the issue head-on in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity, so was Jeremy Corbyn perfectly entitled yesterday to examine what he believes are the root causes and responses to Islamist terrorism on our shores.

In light of the Manchester attack, we must examine the validity of our military interventions abroad and properly fund our emergency services at home. That was his speech in short.

The Conservatives predictably accused him of crass timing, the Liberals of exploiting a tragedy, but what did we expect him to make a speech about – litter collection?

When the Con-Dems round on him, remember it is the record of both these parties in government that Corbyn is holding to account.

It was they who cut back on police numbers and it was David Cameron’s coalition government that bombed Libya from the air without a clear thought on what would happen afterwards on the ground.

Libya is today a failed, lawless state that fosters the kind of terrorist ideology linking directly to Manchester Arena, by way of places as diverse as Barra and Moss Side and dozens of other affected communities.

Corbyn was one of 13 MPs who voted against UK involvement in a UN-backed mission in Libya. Indeed, his life-long opposition to military intervention abroad and his previous support of Irish republican terrorists greatly undermine his message.

Imagine the same assurances, about not deploying troops abroad without a clear mission statement, coming from the lips of a Labour figure with credibility among members the forces – a Dan Jarvis or an Yvette Cooper, for example. Think how much more reach Labour would have.

Nonetheless, Corbyn took a principled stance in the face of what he knew would be a ferocious backlash from the media lackeys of the Conservative Party.

In the middle of an election campaign, and with victims still to be buried, that displayed a certain quality of leadership.

Corbyn, up until now, has had a good campaign. His policy messages have been packaged with the right amount of populism and in contrast to the wooden performances of Theresa May, he genuinely seems to be enjoying himself.

That approach appears to be paying off in polling, although one survey showing Labour closing the gap to five points should not be taken as a resurgence. In elections, polls always tighten and loosen.

But elections are also the golden opportunity for politicians to be heard.

What Corbyn said yesterday will resonate with many people – some of whom will argue on the timing or the attitude that turns away from the global responsibility to fight terror.

But it will be talked about – and on this issue, Corbyn deserves a hearing.