Perhaps the Daily Mail has finally come to see that the Morning Star had been right all along about the EU, although I shall believe that when it urged rejection of David Cameron's renegotiated terms, should they ever have materialised, at a referendum, should it ever be held.
But that newspaper's really important editorial today is this:
There can be no doubting the strength of the Defence Secretary's convictions.
But when Michael Fallon insists it is 'morally indefensible' not to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria, we are surely entitled to question his logic.
Why should the destruction of a Russian airliner, almost certainly by an IS bomb (as even Vladimir Putin now seems to accept), place any moral duty on Britain to enter a bitter and confused civil war?
It's not as if Putin is our ally. Indeed, in backing Bashar al-Assad, he's attacking the very opposition forces Mr Fallon wants us to support.
And if IS was behind the air crash, all this shows is that Russian citizens are suffering for their country's intervention.
Why should the Government expose British citizens to a similarly heightened risk, after the Foreign Affairs Committee warned only this week against the folly (and questionable legality) of extending our bombing to Syria?
Meanwhile, shouldn't ministers resist the temptation to cite the air disaster as a reason to support stronger surveillance powers for police and spies?
Yes, there's a powerful case for the Home Secretary's proposals. But like the Syrian question, they should be debated dispassionately.
Appalling though the air crash was, it changes nothing.
But that newspaper's really important editorial today is this:
There can be no doubting the strength of the Defence Secretary's convictions.
But when Michael Fallon insists it is 'morally indefensible' not to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria, we are surely entitled to question his logic.
Why should the destruction of a Russian airliner, almost certainly by an IS bomb (as even Vladimir Putin now seems to accept), place any moral duty on Britain to enter a bitter and confused civil war?
It's not as if Putin is our ally. Indeed, in backing Bashar al-Assad, he's attacking the very opposition forces Mr Fallon wants us to support.
And if IS was behind the air crash, all this shows is that Russian citizens are suffering for their country's intervention.
Why should the Government expose British citizens to a similarly heightened risk, after the Foreign Affairs Committee warned only this week against the folly (and questionable legality) of extending our bombing to Syria?
Meanwhile, shouldn't ministers resist the temptation to cite the air disaster as a reason to support stronger surveillance powers for police and spies?
Yes, there's a powerful case for the Home Secretary's proposals. But like the Syrian question, they should be debated dispassionately.
Appalling though the air crash was, it changes nothing.
Has the Daily Mail come to see that the Daily Worker, as it then was, had been right all along about Hitler abroad or the Blackshirts at home? Hurrah!
ReplyDelete"Yes, there's a powerful case for the Home Secretary's proposals"? Not according to the Morning Star, there isn't.
One of London's most distinguished media lawyers recently told me that the one interest in which his firm absolutely refused to act, no matter how much money was offered, was the Daily Mail.
DeleteBut on the neocon wars and everything that goes with them, it is at least better than the Murdoch lot. Still, The Sun is being given away free again, and it has had to take down its paywall. It bankrolls The Times.
I have a lot of respect for Tony Gallagher, Doubtless, he will re-emerge somewhere. Perhaps editing a genuinely popular newspaper, in the sense that anyone was prepared to pay to read it?