Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Are the two Eds Attlee and Cripps – or Tory clones? (Daily Telegraph)

Miliband and Balls have sown confusion among Conservative opponents with their new economic approach, writes Mary Riddell.

2. Careless talk may cost the economy (Financial Times)

If the Fed had been more prudent, premature tightening might have been avoided, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Osborne must stick to his Scalextric model (Times

Any politician can talk big, but successful ministers don’t always speed to the finish line, writes Daniel Finkelstein. They plot a steady course.

4. Don't expect James Bond to act like Mother Teresa (Guardian)

Handing our personal data to the US Prism project is exactly how you'd expect our spies to behave, writes David Davis. That's why they need strict legal controls.

5. Egyptians must not let their country descend into chaos (Guardian)

President Morsi has made mistakes – but Egypt's opposition, by aligning with former regime members, is sidelining democracy, says Wadah Khanfar.

6. The old deserve every penny of their pensions (Times

Let’s avoid a battle of the generations, says Alice Thomson. Britain’s oldest citizens led much harder lives than today’s young.

7. Politicians who demand inquiries should be taken out and shot (Guardian)

From Stephen Lawrence to Bloody Sunday, an inquiry serves as the establishment's get out of jail free card, writes Simon Jenkins. 

8. The rest of us work when needed. Why can't the bolshy doctors' union grasp that? (Daily Mail)

For two decades, doctors have provided ever less effective out-of-hours cover, says Max Hastings. 

9. QE was fun while it lasted. Now it’s time for the cuts (Independent)

It's time to set out on the road back to monetary sustainability - and it's not going to be easy, says Hamish McRae.

10. Nice Sir Mervyn King still allowed the ship to crash (Daily Telegraph)

Despite the plaudits, the Governor of the Bank of England's economic theories were hopelessly misguided, says Iain Martin.
 
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.