Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. NHS enemies will declare the service broken. But it is not (Guardian)

Mid Staffs will be used to justify further reforms – and of the very kind that contributed to that horror in the first place, says Polly Toynbee.

2. Gove may have lost a skirmish, but he’s winning the war (Daily Telegraph)

The GCSE setback for Gove is proof that he is daring to try something new, says Fraser Nelson.

3. Leave things to the professionals, Mr Gove (Independent)

The Education Secretary almost managed to make his climbdown on the EBC look like part of a bigger masterplan, writes Melissa Benn. Almost, but not quite.

4. The NHS is run for the staff, not the patients (Times) (£)

It’s not heresy to demand that hospitals treat people like customers, says Philip Collins. More listening would have meant fewer deaths.

5. A case to reset basis of monetary policy (Financial Times)

The current regime is meant to stabilise inflation and help stabilise the economy, writes Martin Wolf. It has failed.

6. Tunisia is no longer a revolutionary poster-child (Guardian)

Tunisia's revolution was held up as a model, writes Rachel Shabi. But rising political violence is a real threat to progress.

7. Held back by the Lib Dems... yet again (Daily Mail)

By wrecking Michael Gove's GCSE plan, the Lib Dems have – once again – blocked a reform this country desperately needs if it is not to become an economic also-ran, says a Daily Mail editorial.

8. Intervention: the US won’t, Europe can’t (Financial Times)

Europeans have caught the bug just as the US has shaken it off – but they lack the means, writes Philip Stephens.

9. Bank of England: Mark Carney's circus (Guardian)

Carney's testimony to Treasury select committee made clear that a classic British evolution is the most that is likely to be on the cards, says a Guardian editorial.

The re-re-naming of Stalingrad and Spielberg's latest film Lincoln are both examples of how we revise our national history to suit the needs of the current times, writes Mary Dejevsky.

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.