Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. Suddenly, grumpy old Gordon Brown doesn't look such a lost cause (Daily Telegraph)

The PM is an unlikely trump card for his party, says Mary Riddell, looking at recent polls. There is no way that Labour could win the next election, but David Cameron should be wary.

2. Mock this campaign if you like, but how else can Blair be held to account? (Guardian)

George Monbiot defends his campaign to pay a bounty to anyone who arrests Tony Blair. He says that with the limits of power in Britain so ill-defined, the only way a reckoning for Iraq will ever come is through a citizen's arrest.

3. A misreading of Iran that risks a fatal replay of Iraq (Independent)

Mary Dejevsky takes issue with Tony Blair's take on Iran, and US action in the area, as there is no sign that Tehran harbours malign or expansionist intentions, or even that a nuclear Iran would pose a global threat.

4. Tories should be most afraid of their own fear (Times)

David Cameron is at his best when he is at his boldest, argues Rachel Sylvester. But as the election approaches, a dangerous timidity is taking over.

5. Leaderless Nigeria could spin out of control (Financial Times)

Louise Arbour and Ayo Obe discuss the mounting political crisis in Nigeria in the absence of President Umaru Yar'Adua.

6. Afflictions of liberty (Guardian)

Tristram Riley-Smith notes that the word "liberty" was absent from Barack Obama's first State of the Union address -- he may have grasped that the ideal of freedom Americans cling to so fiercely is fracturing their society.

7. The peculiar urge to sack the England captain (Times)

Is adultery sufficient reason for sacking John Terry, asks David Aaronovitch? We are blasé about adultery; perhaps Terry's real crime is betraying a team-mate.

8. The Tories have had it easy too long (Independent)

Steve Richards says that he cannot recall an opposition that has changed its approach to tax/spend so often, and welcomes a new period of intense scrutiny of Conservative policy.

9. Companies need to recruit the older woman (Financial Times)

Women are now more educated than men in every age group up to 45, so why are there so few of them in the boardroom? Michael Skapinker looks at gender discrimination, and says older women should be reintegrated into the corporate world once their children are grown.

10. Free care sounds nice, but why redistribute to the rich? (Guardian)

Polly Toynbee discusses the personal care at home bill, saying that in pursuit of a gripping headline, Brown has scuppered a fair, sensible and long-term plan for care of the elderly.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.