Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. America’s fiscal policy is not in crisis (Financial Times)

The most urgent challenge is to promote economic recovery, says Martin Wolf, not reduce the deficit. 

2. What the latest conflict in north Africa tells us about the meaning of 'war on terror' (Independent)

To try and draw simplistic lines between good and bad will only help those seeking to unify those with ethnic, regional and international grievances, writes Douglas Alexander.

3. Mali: the fastest blowback yet in this disastrous war on terror (Guardian)

French intervention in Mali will fuel terrorism, but the west's buildup in Africa is also driven by the struggle for resources, writes Seumas Milne.

4. Fear of the grey vote has turned politicians into cowards (Daily Telegraph)

Wealthy pensioners must pay their fair share to finance childcare and social care bills, argues Mary Riddell. 

5. Trident will not protect us (Guardian)

Britain can't justify these military cuts without looking at the billions spent on nuclear weapons, says Liberal Democrat armed forces minister Nick Harvey. 

6. It’s not a fight against ‘us’. It’s Islam v Islam (Times) (£)

The new "war on terror" won’t be won by armies, but by helping moderate Muslim governments defeat extremism, says Paddy Ashdown.

7. An African crusade is lunacy when cuts have left us barely enough soldiers to troop the colour (Daily Mail)

David Cameron should not have sent a single British aircraft anywhere near his French counterpart’s rash African adventure, says Max Hastings.

8. Climate change is back on the agenda, at last (Independent)

Warnings of the economic risks of global warming should help focus minds at Davos, says an Independent editorial. 

9. Wars like Afghanistan should never be a theatre for celebrity (Guardian)

Prince Harry may shine as a soldier, but he's just a pawn in a political game – adding celebrity dust to a senseless conflict, says Simon Jenkins. 

10. Whitehall can learn from London 2012 (Financial Times)

The games hold plenty of pointers to effective and successful delivery, writes Peter Riddell.

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.