Canary Out Of Tune AGAIN

[Update at end of post]

Corbyn-backing website The Canary has been the butt of jokes from right-wingers and the more mainstream media of late for its more than occasional over-egging of the pudding, but here on Zelo Street such sources are treated strictly on their merits, as is their hero Jezza. When others slag them off on the flimsiest of pretexts, they get called out. But when they get it wrong themselves, they get called out too.

It is not giving away any trade secrets to tell that The Canary is prepared to stand behind the current Labour leader whether his performance is good, bad or indifferent. Thus when Jezza had a bad PMQs yesterday - something that does not happen often nowadays - they were first out of the traps telling readers how he had bossed Theresa May. He hadn’t. Likewise there has been a staunch defence of Jezza on the Article 50 debate.

“Did you get duped by The Guardian’s ‘three-line’ Brexit farce?” asked The Canary last Friday, claiming “On 19 January, The Guardian reported that Jeremy Corbyn had ‘signalled’ he would impose a three-line whip on his MP … But the problem is that neither Corbyn nor his team have spoken of imposing a three-line whip … The fact that Corbyn’s team has not yet issued a statement does not give The Guardian the right to make up their minds for them”. So the Guardian had been wrong, had it?

Well, maybe not: today, in its coverage of Labour’s Article 50 controversy, and under the heading “What Corbyn said about a 3-line whip”, the Guardian tells “Jeremy Corbyn recorded a short clip for Sky News about the article 50 bill. Asked if the party would impose a three-line whip telling its MPs to vote for the bill, he at first replied ‘It will be a clear decision that we want all of our MPs to support the article 50 vote when it comes up next week’ … Then, when pressed on the question of whether it would be a three-line whip, he went on ‘It’s clearly a three-line whip’”. So the Guardian had not been wrong, after all.

This makes The Canary’s conclusion in its Guardian bashing article that much more telling: “The Guardian can be a superb and informative news source. But that cannot excuse journalism which plays fast and loose with the truth. We need news sources like The Guardian which do great investigative work. But every time they do something like this, their readers lose a little bit more faith in them”. You don’t say.

What is far more pressing right now for the Labour leadership than how the Guardian might have worded a headline is the potential revolt among the party’s front bench over whipping the Article 50 vote. Clive Lewis and Tulip Siddiq are said to be considering voting against, and may therefore have to resign their front bench positions.

There may be others following that lead. On top of that, some Corbyn supporters are dismayed at his stance on the issue. George Monbiot has concluded “I was thrilled when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, but it has been one fiasco after another. I have now lost all faith”, while Andrew Bowie has concurred: “This makes no sense, and I am a Corbyn supporter. Equivalent to voting to be tax haven”.

And Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk has put it bluntly: “Corbyn's Brexit policy, from demanding A50 was triggered on June 24 to whipping it today, has been a triumph of monumental stupidity”. The Canary, though, is arguing the toss over a headline that turned out not to be wrong. One has to wonder if and when they will get their priorities in order.

[UPDATE 1800 hours: as the BBC is now reporting, Tulip Siddiq has indeed resigned from the Labour front bench. Bit more significant than arguing over Guardian headlines, eh?]