Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. If the Tories have a secret plan for power, they're keeping it quiet (Daily Telegraph)

Despite their boasts about being prepared for government, says Benedict Brogan, there are some anxious faces in the party's high command.

2. The fault line in Haiti runs straight to France (Times)

Ben Macintyre says that the destruction by the earthquake has been aggravated, not by a pact with the devil, but by the crippling legacy of imperialism. He looks back at Haiti's colonised history.

3. If Britain wants change that counts, there's an election it can vote in today (Guardian)

Timothy Garton Ash says that ideological differences between the parties are hugely exaggerated. What matters most is to transform the system. He writes about political reform and the Power 2010 campaign.

4. We have learnt the wrong lessons from Iraq (Financial Times)

Fresh from his appearance at the Chilcot inquiry, Alastair Campbell says that the government must improve strategic communication, as winning the war in Afghanistan requires maintaining public support.

5. This is a terrible reverse, but don't write off Obama (Independent)

There is discontent about the US economy, says Matthew Norman, but it is expected to improve dramatically by 2012, and Barack Obama foresaw this backlash before his election.

6. Lessons of a Mass revolt (Guardian)

Harold Evans agrees that although many voters oppose health reform, Obama's rejection in Massachusetts is mainly because millions are still out of work.

7. Bank of England independence is a cause of immense frustration for Gordon Brown (Daily Telegraph)

Mervyn King's latest criticism of the handling of the recession was a body blow to the PM, says Edmund Conway.

8. Family values have the Tories in a twist (Independent)

A mighty roar calls for our governments to praise the family. Steve Richards doesn't see how or why they should -- it is time for a debate about the limits and scope of government.

9. Review the sell-off of great British companies (Financial Times)

Will Hutton and Phillip Blond question the dominant logic of the past 30 years that mergers are good for the companies involved, for the economy and for consumers, and they call for British assets to be protected.

10. Memo to medics: it's about emotions as well as tumours (Guardian)

Zoe Williams looks at the latest disagreement among breast cancer experts, which shines a light into the grey areas of the NHS's screening programme.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

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.