MI5 threat assessment highlights potential faultline in government

MI5 director-general Ken McCallum delivered his annual threat assessment on Wednesday.

He pointed to a revival of state-based threats from Russia, China and Iran with a rather elaborate, if timely, football metaphor.

There was also a nod to the 'challenging' political situation in Northern Ireland, presumably a reference to the tensions around the post-Brexit protocol deal. Loyalist sabre-rattling on that issue nevertheless went unmentioned despite the recent threat to Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney.

On terrorism in general, he had this to say:

Islamist Terrorism remains the larger problem – about three quarters of our terrorist caseload. As previously, much of the volume is self-radicalised terrorists seeking to conduct low-sophistication attacks. Low sophistication does not mean low impact: think of the appalling murder of Sir David Amess MP just over a year ago.

In a free country, detecting self-initiated terrorists – who often don’t reveal their plans to anyone, and can move quickly and sometimes spontaneously from intent to violence – is an inherently hard challenge. A challenge which is compounded by the complex mix, often, of extremist ideology with personal grievance and individual vulnerability such as mental ill-health. This poses pressing questions about how different elements of the State should best join up to manage risk to the public, effectively and proportionately.

This same phenomenon is strongly present also in the other quarter of our counter-terrorist caseload: Extreme Right Wing Terrorism. We most recently saw the horrible petrol bomb attack in Dover.

Just as with Islamist extremist activity, it is not always straightforward to draw lines demarcating what is and is not terrorism. In cases of previously-unknown attackers, who make no claim of responsibility, it takes time to assemble the facts – and even once they are assembled, they are often a confused mix of factors.

There may be some tension here with the current review of the Prevent counter-terrorism programme. This is being undertaken by Lord Shawcross, a well-connected Conservative peer with hardline views on Islam.

The Guardian obtained a leak of the draft review in July:

One extract says Prevent has a “double standard when dealing with extreme rightwing and Islamism”. It says the programme has taken an expansive view on rightwing terror, which has “been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, rightwing-leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation”.

However, it says a more hardline approach should be taken towards Islamist extremism, and that the programme has concentrated on proscribed organisations, “ignoring Islamist narratives”.

It remains to be seen whether the published version will be revised in the wake of the Dover attack. According to Hope Not Hate, perpetrator Andrew Leak supported Kemi Badenoch's attack on so-called 'critical race theory' during the Conservative leadership campaign.

The line between the mainstream and the far-right is thus murkier than Lord Shawcross has so far allowed, but can a Conservative of his robust views afford to acknowledge that?