Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. What would the Age of Ed mean for Britain? Even he doesn’t know (Daily Telegraph)

Events are propelling Miliband towards No 10, but neither he nor his party are ready, argues Fraser Nelson.

2. The John Lewis motto should be 'never knowingly underpay' (Guardian)

Why celebrate the store's business model when its famed generosity doesn't extend to its outsourced and low-paid cleaners, writes Polly Toynbee.

3. The Lib Dems need to be more liberal (Financial Times)

Left libertarianism seems the right way to go for the junior coalition party, says Samuel Brittan.

4. Ignore the slogans. It’s all about leadership (Times) (£)

Three parties, three themes, but only one real question – can the man in charge make his followers back him, writes Philip Collins.

5. Hillsborough shows it's time for elected police commissioners (Guardian)

If the public head of Sheffield police had been accountable to voters we may have avoided the 23 years of cover-ups, argues Simon Jenkins.

6. Looking the American giants in the eye (Daily Telegraph)

A merger between BAE and its European rival EADS could create a defence superpower, writes Michael Clarke.

7. There's a moral case for striking instead of doing nothing (Independent)

For the first time in a generation the radical left has both reason and momentum on its side - we all must act to reject this failing austerity project, says Laurie Penny.

8. Ben Bernanke: flakcatcher-in-chief (Guardian)

Barack Obama's administration are likely to greet the Federal Reserve chief's latest move with a sigh of relief, says a Guardian editorial.

9. The US is becoming a selective superpower (Financial Times)

The country’s global reach will be reduced in a gradual reshaping of the postwar order, writes Philip Stephens.

10. Yes, he may have killed the princes in the Tower, but now we should give our last English king a decent burial (Daily Mail)

There is much that we know of the good he did in a turbulent age, he deserves, with due ceremony, a decent burial, says Simon Heffer.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.