Cameron on Corbyn: were the PM's attacks on Labour's leader justified?

David Cameron had some strong words for his Labour opponent, Jeremy Corbyn, in his party conference speech, his first major attack on the new party leader.

Addressing the Conservative party conference in Manchester, Cameron said of Corbyn:

You only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.

No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.

Is Cameron’s attack justified? Here’s the section, line by line.

“He thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy”

Corbyn was on Iran’s Press TV talking about the killing of the al-Qaida leader at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan by US navy Seals.

This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

But the context to that sentence is key – Corbyn is having a discussion about extrajudicial killing. He says, before that controversial line:

Well I think that everyone should be put on trial. I also profoundly disagree with the death penalty, under any circumstances for anybody. That’s my own view.

On this there was no attempt whatsoever that I can see, to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

“A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York”

Corbyn not only does not dispute this, but says it himself in his very next sentence on the same controversial programme in question.

He says:

The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.

“Security-threatening”

The Conservatives have previously launched attack ads calling the Labour leader “a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family’s security”, but the prime minister himself had been relatively restrained in his approach to Corbyn thus far.

There are a number of things to which Cameron could be referring. Corbyn has made it clear he is opposed to renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent, and told the BBC he would never authorise the use of nuclear weapons as prime minister.

He said:

I don’t think we should be spending £100bn on renewing Trident. That is a quarter of our defence budget.

There are many in the military that do not want Trident renewed because they see it as an obsolete thing they don’t need. They would much rather see it spent on conventional weapons.

Corbyn has also been accused of wanting to take the UK out of Nato, and wanting to disband the British armed forces.

He has spoken of wanting to see a world where armies are not necessary, telling a local meeting:

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished their army and took pride in the fact they don’t have an army?

Whether that is “security-threatening” or simply expressing a wish for world peace is for the listener’s interpretation.

Corbyn has previously expressed opposition to Nato, but the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has made it clear that policy will not be on Corbyn’s agenda as leader.

“Terrorist-sympathising”

Corbyn is a longstanding advocate of engagement with all sides of conflicts, from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, but some of his associations have drawn criticism for the closeness of the relationships.

In a 2009 video, Corbyn mentions having invited “friends in Hamas” and “friends in Hezbollah” to the House of Commons. The militant wing of Hamas has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK since 2001, with the EU declaring the same for the military wing of Hizbollah in 2013.

Corbyn was asked by Channel 4 News about his “friends” phrasing, which the MP said he did not mean in a “collective way”.

Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.

The MP said he had met with the Hamas leadership on several occasions on his nine visits to Israel and the Palestinian territories, including a visit with Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, but pointed out Tony Blair had also met senior figures from Hamas.

Does it mean I agree with the social attitudes, policies, legal attitudes of those organisations? Absolutely not.

“Britain-hating”

This is the most subjective charge levelled by Cameron. Corbyn did not sing the national anthem at a memorial for the Battle of Britain at St Paul’s cathedral, but said he was overcome with emotions thinking about his parents’ wartime experiences – and promised he would be singing in future.

In his own conference speech, Corbyn took on his accusers, claiming he loved Britain for its leftwing values.

It is this sense of fair play, these shared majority British values that are the fundamental reason why I love this country and its people.

These values are what I was elected on: a kinder politics and a more caring society.