Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The worst thing the Tories can do is catch the Ukip bug (Guardian)

Eastleigh punished Cameron for not finishing his modernisation project, says Jonathan Freedland. Now Conservative voters have somewhere else to go.

2. The case of Brussels and banker bonuses (Financial Times)

Europe has found a way to attack the UK that is sure to be favoured by much of the British public, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Two fingers up, but government not down (Times) (£)

The Eastleigh result means Clegg can still work with Cameron, writes Matthew Parris. That’s more important than any UKIP protest vote.

4. I used to argue when people said 'all parties are all the same’. I don’t now (Daily Telegraph)

Voters are punishing politicians who have lost touch with normal human instincts, says Charles Moore.

5. We have a long way to go before our immigration system is fair and simple (Independent)

I support tough controls on immigration, but the government has focused on the wrong end of the stick, says Labour's shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant.

6. Can Cameron prove himself a winner? (Daily Telegraph)

A new path to prosperity is the only means by which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can return the Tories to favour, says a Telegraph editorial.

7. The west babbles on, and Assad is the winner (Independent)

Talks in Rome did nothing to hide the fact Syria's people have been betrayed, says Robert Fisk.

8. Grotesque myth that Red Ed leads a 'one nation' party (Daily Mail)

This electoral snub proves the party’s complete disconnection from hard-pressed and striving voters in the south of England, says Simon Heffer.

9. Beware of misreading Eastleigh result (Financial Times)

The by-election is a political, not electoral, problem for David Cameron, writes Robert Shrimsley.

10. What Labour could learn from Hollywood (Guardian)

Persona is as important in politics as it is in the movies, writes Marina Hyde. If only Ed Miliband would dump Ed Balls and recast Alistair Darling.

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.