Evasive Mr Corbyn is creating an unsafe space

It is good that election campaigning has resumed today, after being suspended following Saturday night’s atrocities. The issues raised by both the Manchester and London outrages ought to affect one’s vote. They are central to our future as a free country.

Besides, I sense that some decent people are confused about the best way to react, so the arguments need more airing. Public ambivalence resembles moderate opinion in the notorious “Who Governs Britain?” general election of February 1974. The great majority at that time disliked trade union militancy and endless strikes, but was split about how best to handle them. Many backed Ted Heath’s Conservative government in facing down the extremists. But waverers thought Labour might be the better party to make industrial peace. The public’s indecision was final: no party emerged with an overall majority. A minority Labour government came in, and stayed in office (confirmed that October) for more than five years.

Today, everyone except the hard Left and Islamist fanatics hates these killings, but there are signs of the classic clash of confrontation and appeasement that dots British history.

Jeremy Corbyn is clever at offering appeasement. It is always better to talk, he says. He points out that, even under Margaret Thatcher, the British government had back-channels to the IRA. If only we understood each other better, we wouldn’t need all this killing, he suggests.

Mr Corbyn is mixing up two things. He is right that almost all governments seek secret ways of making contact with murderous extremists, in order to find out more about them and discover whether some of them can be turned. That is very different, however, from conferring legitimacy on the terrorists and/or their non-violent but extremist allies. To give them the status of negotiating partners is to reward their extremism.

Every time members of the public have challenged Mr Corbyn during the campaign, he has condemned “all terrorism”. No one has yet managed to get him to say that he condemns all murders by the IRA or Hamas, etc, and leave it at that. He always sticks in a qualification.

Why his consistent evasion? Mostly because he does not believe that terrorist organisations are innately bad, though he tut-tuts at their methods. His criticism is chiefly aimed at what he sees as nasty actions by Western governments which “provoke” regrettable violence.

At the beginning of last week, on television, Mr Corbyn spoke about “the wonderful faith of Islam”. The week before, Salman Abedi had killed 22 in the name of that faith. The Saturday after his words, three men shouted “This is for Allah!” as they charged round Borough Market stabbing the crowd. You would never hear Mr Corbyn speak about “the wonderful faith of Christianity”, whose adherents do not murder anyone in the name of Jesus in Britain today. Why is that?

Mr Corbyn is sincere in disliking violence, but if violence is directed against Western authorities, he condemns the terrorists’ hotheadedness, not their cause. He thus creates a political “safe space” for their ideology, which means, if he becomes prime minister, an unsafer space for the rest of us.

For her part, Theresa May has brought greater clarity to the situation. She specifically stated yesterday that military intervention and defensive counter-terrorism, though necessary, are not sufficient. She spoke of defeating the “single, evil ideology of Islamism” and its means of internet dissemination.

The PM added that this will mean “some difficult and often embarrassing conversations” in the public sector. These are welcome words. One of the most persistent problems in public policy towards Islamism has been choosing the wrong partners. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies are expert in changing names and organisations to conceal their true character and gain access to fresh tranches of public money. They need to be identified and exposed for practising subversion. Subversion is a word that our intelligence services have not liked using since the Cold War, but it accurately describes the efforts of extremists who, even when non-violent, are actively working to undermine our democracy.

‘He does not believe that terrorist organisations are innately bad, though he tut-tuts at their methods’

Given the grimness of our public affairs just now, I was touched by an election address I saw last week when staying with friends in the Henley constituency. It was from the Labour candidate, Oliver Kavanagh, who looks more like the head boy of a minor public school than a socialist ranter.

Inside, Mr Kavanagh’s short message to voters begins: “Henley constituency is wonderful. I referee all over Oxfordshire in the North Berks and Hellenic Football Leagues and open the bowling for Stonor as the most scenic cricket ground in the country.” Nearly a third of the page is occupied by a photograph of a Stonor game in progress. No mention or picture of Jeremy Corbyn is allowed to disturb this pastoral idyll.

The subliminal message is that we can all be happy Hobbits in Mr Kavanagh’s Shire. Unfortunately, as we saw on Saturday night, the forces of Sauron are active only 40 miles away. I think Henley will remain a Tory seat.