Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Labour’s half-time lead counts for nothing The Telegraph

It’s no good defending – Miliband must bring an old star off the bench to secure victory, writes Matthew Norman.

2. Labour needs real cuts as well as real ideas The Times (£)

What happens to the benefits bill under a Miliband government? Voters need details as well as philosophy, writes Philip Collins.

3. On Abu Hamza as on defending your home, the suitably named Judge Judge has called it right The Independent

The delays to the hook-handed hate preacher's deportation are a disgrace; and of course we should be able to defend our own homes, writes Evgeny Lebedev.

4. This is the speech Ed Miliband should make next Tuesday The Guardian

At the Labour party conference, Miliband must lift his eyes from those gathered in the hall and address the whole country, writes Jonathan Freedland.

5. Goodbye Beveridge: welfare’s end nears The Financial Times (£)

The latest British Social Attitudes survey spells out in agonising detail the collapse in support over the past decade or so for social security spending and what might be called poor peoples’ welfare, writes David Goodhart.

6. For voters ten years is a short time in politics The Times (£)

We experts obsessed with the latest Westminster story can lose sight of what’s really important to most people, writes Matthew Parris.

7. An enemy at the gates of Downing Street? The Telegraph

An argument about a bicycle has exposed festering police resentment against the Government and raised big questions about the Metropolitan Police’s public accountability, writes John Yates, former UK Head of Counter Terrorism.

8. Why do we care about Megan Stammers from Eastbourne but not "Suzie" from Rochdale? The Independent

The authorities knew about the girls’ plight in Rochdale and did nothing. But every girl deserves to be respected, regardless of her background, writes Laurie Penny.

9. Catalan with Spain’s future in his hands The Financial Times (£)

A full-blown constitutional crisis, in which the survival of the Spanish nation-state within its present boundaries is at stake, will now collide head on with the eurozone and fiscal crises, writes David Gardner.

10. Animal research is brave, not cruel, science The Guardian

Attitudes to animal research have changed, yet many scientists still fear speaking about their essential and important work, says Fiona Fox.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496