Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. End this masochism in economic policy (Financial Times)

Prolonged stagnation and high unemployment will permanently lower the economy's potential, writes Martin Wolf. But there is an alternative.

2. The welfare reform bill will incentivise people: to turn on David Cameron (Guardian)

David Cameron's cuts have barely got going yet, writes Polly Toynbee. That's the frightening truth about austerity.

3. If Labour ditched David and Ed Miliband, it could actually win an election (Daily Telegraph)

Labour holds all the cards, but its leadership doesn't know how to play them, says Fraser Nelson.

4. Ed shouldn't get too excited about François (Times) (£)

If Hollande wins in France and Obama in the US, it doesn't follow that the Left in Britain would regain power, writes Philip Collins.

5. Red light for bonuses at Network Rail (Daily Mail)

Sir David Higgins and his Network Rail colleagues should waive their bonuses, argues a Daily Mail editorial.

6. An alarming outbreak of constitutional vandalism (Daily Telegraph)

The Conservatives should know better than to tinker with the constitution, says a Daily Telegraph editorial.

7. My solution to the Falklands problem: sell them (Independent)

I doubt we have much stomach for another war in the south Atlantic, writes Philip Hensher. And we need the money.

8. Alain de Botton's atheist temple is a nice idea, but a defunct one (Guardian)

De Botton's atheist temple call does not need to be realised - our existing places of worship can be appreciated by all, argues John Gray.

9. Israel will not pull out of the next Middle East war until Hizbollah is annihilated (Daily Telegraph)

The tension on the Lebanese border is palpable as sworn enemies flex their military muscle, writes Con Coughlin.

10. Egypt's generals will soon hear the final whistle (Independent)

If the British tend to believe in the cock-up theory of history, in the Middle East it's the opposite, says Adrian Hamilton.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On the important issues, Louise Casey all too often has little to say

Far from moving the debate on, this new report on integration adds little to the report I commissioned in 2001. 

For 15 years, “numerous government reports on community cohesion and integration have not been implemented with enough force or consistency” concludes Louise Casey’s review of  integration.  The government’s lukewarm response suggests their effort will be as “diluted and muddled” as all the rest.

There’s a deeper reason why governments shy away from the measures that are needed. The report's wealth of data sets out a stark if sometimes contestable picture of a divided society.  But no amount of data can really bring the lives of our fellow citizens to life. As the Brexit vote underlined, this is now a nation divided by class, geography, education, wealth, opportunity and race. Those divisions colour the way we live our lives, the way we see problems in society, the relations we have with others, and our political choices. The report, like many before it, stops short of setting out that reality. It’s easier to pretend that most of us pretty much agree on most things; but just few people don’t agree and they must be the problem. Predictably, much of the early coverage has focussed on the Muslim community and new migrants. If only it were so easy.

According to Casey “in this country, we take poverty, social exclusion, social justice and social mobility seriously” and we do it “across political divides”. Apparently “creating a fair, just society where everyone can prosper and get on” is a cornerstone of British values. Yet for page after page the report chronicles the serial failure of this benign consensus to tackle educational under-performance, and economic and racial disadvantage. If we all agree, how come we haven't done anything about it?

These problems are not certainly easy to solve, but more lip service is paid to tackling them than effort. The practical material issues documented here need addressing, but punches are pulled when hard answers are needed. Given the dramatic impact of mass migration on cohesion, is integration possible while current rates of immigration persist? Can we find the political will to tackle poverty and disadvantage when those who might benefit from the effort are divided against each other by suspicion, race, geography and values? After all, rather than progressive policies producing a cohesive society, social unity is the precondition for the introduction of progressive policies.

We don't actually actually agree on what our “fundamental values” mean in practice. We can all sign up to democracy and the rule of law, but as soon as those are put into practice – see the court case on Article 50 – we are divided. When judges are popularly seen as “enemies of the people” and a vote in an elected parliament as a threat to democracy, in what sense are law and democracy fundamental?

Casey usefully highlights how treating homeless families equally, irrespective of ethnicity and length of residence can create the perception that minorities are being favoured over long standing residents. Our differing views on what is “just” and how “fairness” are defined can tear us apart. Is it fair to favour the newcomer over the indigenous? Is it just to put length of time on the waiting list above housing need? We often don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of other points of view, let alone try to find common ground.

The continual invocation of Britain and British values lends an air of unreality to the report.  Most people in England include British in their identity, but Englishness and English interests are of growing importance. In a worrying development, some areas of England  may be polarising between a white Englishness and an ethnic minority Britishness. Integration won't happen without a shared national story that combines a unifying national identity with the acceptance that we all have more than one identity that matters to us. Ignoring the reality of complex and multiple identities closes off one essential way forward.

None of this means that the criticism of some reactionary and occasionally dangerous ideas and practices in the Muslim community should be ignored and not confronted. But in a country where the established church opposes homosexual relationships and praise for Vladimir Putin's Russia is now mainstream politics it is hard to believe that all our problems can be reduced to the behaviour of a minority of a minority community.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University