Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. A health service for all citizens really would be patriotic (Daily Telegraph)

Patriotism may prove to be the legacy of these Olympics, and politicians are vying to claim its spirit as their own, writes Mary Riddell.

2. Mohamed Morsi is changing the balance of power in Egypt (Guardian)

In ousting Mubarak-era military chiefs the president has, some fear, accrued too many powers, writes David Hearst. But he is no Vladimir Putin.

3. PM can't count on any gains from the feel-good factor (Independent)

There are millions of Britons thoroughly cheesed off by their inability to get tickets, writes Dominic Lawson.

4. Britain can avoid a post-Olympic crash (Financial Times)

The success of the Olympics has reminded the British that they live in a country that can still succeed on and off the track, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. The risk of allowing shops to open all hours (Daily Telegraph)

Total deregulation may sound tempting, but Sunday trading law stirs strong emotions, writes Philip Johnston.

6. Must the poor go hungry just so the rich can drive? (Guardian)

Sports stars like Mo Farah at No 10 will not change a simple fact: people are starving because of the west's thirst for biofuels, says George Monbiot.

7. London’s East End shows limits of the state (Financial Times)

Just as the UK is learning to invest in itself, it is losing its strengths of openness and flexibility, argues Janan Ganesh.

8. If only a real democrat was behind this sacking (Times) (£)

The removal of Egypt’s army chief restrains the military, writes Maajid Nawaz. Now we need to rein in Islamism.

9. Only big ideas will revive the economy (Daily Mail)

What is needed is nothing less than a fundamental rebalancing of the state-driven economy in favour of the wealth-creating private sector, argues a Daily Mail leader.

10. Paul Ryan's faith in Ayn Rand is a political problem for Romney (Guardian)

Romney's running mate may be Catholic but his admiration for an author hostile to Jesus's teachings risks losing him votes, writes Giles Fraser.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.