The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Five of the Best

The top five comment pieces from today's papers

The Times's Daniel Finkelstein says that if the Liberal Democrats want to become the leading progressive party, they must target Tory, not Labour seats at the next election:

Mr Clegg's stated strategic goal of taking over the centre left is at odds with his tactic of targeting Labour seats at the next election. Labour retains sufficient regional strength that an attempt by the Liberal Democrats simply to wipe them out seems almost certain to fail. They may, to be sure, win a few seats in Labour areas next time. But, after that, progress will stall. And the targeting will have had a huge cost. It will make the sort of soft merger of the forces of the centre left -- the informal coalition-in-all-but-name that the Liberals must hope to lead in a few years' time -- much harder to form.

In the Daily Telegraph, Irwin Stelzer reflects on Irving Kristol's life and his influence on David Cameron's thought:

It was Kristol, too, who realised an important fact that underlies much of David Cameron's thinking: culture affects economic performance. The family must be preserved, as it is the source of the stability that permits people to look to the future, save and invest. Crime must not be condoned, lest society unravels. Welfare that induces dependence is a disservice to the recipients, even if those who make it available feel good.

In the Guardian, Vernon Bogdanor writes that Britain's unreformed electoral system allows the main parties to ignore their declining membership:

There has been a prodigious alteration in the public perception of parties, but it remains unnoticed because the electoral system fails to register it. The system refracts rather than reflects opinion, emphasising the major party vote and de-emphasising the vote for minor parties and independents. It enables Westminster to remain a closed shop, so allowing the major parties to postpone confronting the crucial question of how they are to regain their lost members and voters.

The Wall Street Journal's Thomas Frank argues that the Democrats must champion health-care reform on moral, not technical grounds:

From the beginning they have understood the problem primarily as a technical consumer issue, not a bid for social justice in a manifestly unjust time. In their criticism of the insurance industry they have largely avoided terms like "profiteering" in favour of dry talk about lower costs and more competition -- hardly an ideal platform from which to launch a crusade.

The Independent's Johann Hari says that the EU and the US should concede to China's key demand at the Copenhagen climate talks:

China has hinted it would agree to more substantial restraint at Copenhagen if the rich world -- responsible for 90 per cent of all the warming gases belched into the atmosphere so far -- agrees to give 1 per cent of its GDP annually to poor countries to adjust to clean fuels. There's a lot to criticise the Chinese dictatorship for, but this isn't one of them. It's a reasonable request for simple justice. Poor countries have done very little to cause this crisis, but they will feel the worst, first. They deserve our reparations. Yet both the EU and US have damned this sane proposal as "totally unrealistic".