Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Osborne knows President Obama won by blaming a predecessor (Independent)

How to deal with the recent past is a big unresolved issue for Labour, writes Steve Richards.

2. The Petraeus affair is short on substance (Financial Times)

The scandal did not change how the general did his job or was regarded by colleagues, writes John Gapper.

3. Bercow and his bullies shame our Parliament (Daily Telegraph)

The Speaker is leading an ambush by MPs of the body set up to control their expenses, says Peter Oborne.

4. Forces for Change (Times) (£)

Today’s elections for police and crime commissioners will help to drive reform in a service that has resisted change, argues a Times editorial.

5. This Sri Lanka massacre shows UN has not learned from its failures in Rwanda (Independent)

Operatives allowed themselves to be bullied by a murderous government, says Isabel Hilton.

6. Policy ploys risk UK economic credibility (Financial Times)

The Chancellor should remember it was exactly the policy of hiding known liabilities that got Greece into its current mess, says Chris Giles.

7. Let’s cut crime, not cops: why you need to vote in today's police commissioner elections (Daily Mirror)

New commissioners can resist Conservative cuts and privatisation, writes John Prescott.

8. Stop going on about gay weddings, Mr Osborne, and honour your vows on tax help for married couples (Daily Mail)

It’s the economy, not gay marriage, that will determine the Tories’ electoral fate, says Stephen Glover.

9. Austerity is here to stay, and we'd better get used to it (Guardian)

We think we know all about the rise of Asia and the decline of the west, writes Martin Kettle. But we've barely begun to grasp what it really means.

10. Childcare: I never thought I’d say it, but Nick Clegg is right (Daily Telegraph)

There can be no further progress in equality between the sexes until men and women genuinely regard raising a child as a shared task, writes Allison Pearson.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.