Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Now it’s a battle for the soul of David Cameron (Sunday Telegraph)

Forget the issue of who might make a plausible new leader for the Conservative Party - the question is, can the Prime Minister reinvent himself now that the modernisation project is dead, says Janet Daley.

2. Overburdened, overtaxed, over to you, George (Sunday Times) (£)

This week’s budget must remove the obstacles that prevent job creation, writes David Davis.

3. Secret courts: the Lords must prevent this perversion of true justice (Observer)

The justice and security bill, which would allow secret courts, is pernicious and has no place in this country, says this Observer editorial.

4. My Budget will be tough but it will help people who work hard (Sun on Sunday)

Ahead of delivering his Budget Chancellor George Osborne lays out three-point plan.

5. Britain has a responsibility to ensure tough standards are imposed on the sale of our weapons (Independent on Sunday)

The UN will soon meet to agree a global arms trade treaty and as events in Syria show, thousands of lives depend on on the outcome, write Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy.

6. There's a fresh way on immigration – and it has the public's support (Observer)

A new survey points the way to a balanced and rational approach to immigration that could win widespread consent, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

7. Why this Budget really is the Chancellor's last chance... (Mail on Sunday)

Michael Ashcroft warns George Osborne that he MUST offer the voters more than just endless austerity.

8. Note to all Tories: calm down, dears (Sunday Telegraph)

The Conservatives need to realise they're on the right path, says Andrew Mitchell.

9. Leveson's liberal friends bring shame upon the left (Observer)

MPs who vote to regulate the press tomorrow are siding against the principles they're meant to uphold, says Nick Cohen.

10. Free speech is too important for all this messy politicking (Sunday Telegraph)

A national wave of revulsion at phone hacking is ending in compromise, brinkmanship and Hugh Grant finally getting to play the tough guy, says Matthew D'Ancona.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: History is not written in stone

Statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political.

When a mishmash of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Trump supporters and private militias gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August – a rally that ended in the death of a counter-protester – the ostensible reason was the city’s proposal to remove a statue of a man named Robert E Lee.

Lee was a Confederate general who surrendered to Ulysses S Grant at the Appomattox Court House in 1865, in one of the last battles of the American Civil War – a war fought to ensure that Southern whites could continue to benefit from the forced, unpaid labour of black bodies. He died five years later. It might therefore seem surprising that the contested statue of him in Virginia was not commissioned until 1917.

That knowledge, however, is vital to understanding the current debate over such statues. When the “alt-right” – many of whom have been revealed as merely old-fashioned white supremacists – talk about rewriting history, they speak as if history were an objective record arising from an organic process. However, as the American journalist Vann R Newkirk II wrote on 22 August, “obelisks don’t grow from the soil, and stone men and iron horses are never built without purpose”. The Southern Poverty Law Center found that few Confederate statues were commissioned immediately after the end of the war; instead, they arose in reaction to advances such as the foundation of the NAACP in 1909 and the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and 1960s. These monuments represent not history but backlash.

That means these statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political. They were designed to promote the “Lost Cause” version of the Civil War, in which the conflict was driven by states’ rights rather than slavery. A similar rhetorical sleight of hand can be seen in the modern desire to keep them in place. The alt-right is unwilling to say that it wishes to retain monuments to white supremacy; instead, it claims to object to “history being rewritten”.

It seems trite to say: that is inevitable. Our understanding of the past is perpetually evolving and the hero of one era becomes a pariah in the next. Feminism, anti-colonialism, “people’s history” – all of these movements have questioned who we celebrate and whose stories we tell.

Across the world, statues have become the focus for this debate because they are visible, accessible and shape our experience of public space. There are currently 11 statues in Parliament Square – all of them male. (The suffragist Millicent Fawcett will join them soon, after a campaign led by Caroline Criado-Perez.) When a carving of a disabled artist, Alison Lapper, appeared on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, its sculptor, Marc Quinn, acknowledged its significance. “This square celebrates the courage of men in battle,” he said. “Alison’s life is a struggle to overcome much greater difficulties than many of the men we celebrate and commemorate here.”

There are valid reasons to keep statues to figures we would now rather forget. But we should acknowledge this is not a neutral choice. Tearing down our history, looking it in the face, trying to ignore it or render it unexceptional – all of these are political acts. 

The Brexit delusion

After the UK triggered Article 50 in March, the Brexiteers liked to boast that leaving the European Union would prove a simple task. The International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, claimed that a new trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history” to negotiate and could be agreed before the UK’s scheduled departure on 29 March 2019.

However, after the opening of the negotiations, and the loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority, reality has reasserted itself. All cabinet ministers, including Mr Fox, now acknowledge that it will be impossible to achieve a new trade deal before Brexit. As such, we are told that a “transitional period” is essential.

Yet the government has merely replaced one delusion with another. As its recent position papers show, it hopes to leave institutions such as the customs union in 2019 but to preserve their benefits. An increasingly exasperated EU, unsurprisingly, retorts that is not an option. For Britain, “taking back control” will come at a cost. Only when the Brexiteers acknowledge this truth will the UK have the debate it so desperately needs. 

This article first appeared in the 24 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Sunni vs Shia