Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. The Tories will get burnt fighting fire with fire (Times)

Daniel Finkelstein says that negative campaigning could damage David Cameron's image with the voters. The media focus on the Tories is an opportunity, not a threat.

2. Can anyone explain what the Conservative Party stands for? (Daily Telegraph)

Simon Heffer is not impressed with the way Cameron has moved power of decision-making in the party to the centre. In the absence of the old, core right-wing policies, the Tories lack clarity and direction, and are haemorrhaging support to fringe parties.

3. Bashing the rich won't work for Obama. But other rallying cries might (Guardian)

Obama is shrewd not to inveigh against the bankers, says Michael Tomasky. It would be better to make his cause by reminding America of the good things that the government does, and who higher taxes will help.

4. Passport to the truth in Dubai remains secret (Independent)

Whoever killed the Hamas official in Dubai is still playing an old, dirty war, says Robert Fisk. Now we must look beneath the propaganda for the truth.

5. How to walk the fiscal tightrope that lies before us (Financial Times)

Martin Wolf warns that huge fiscal tightening could tip much of the world back into recession. We must make it one of our priorities to let the private sector heal.

6. Power to the people -- and trust them too (Times)

James Purnell and Jim Murphy renew calls for a radical Labour manifesto. The party has lost faith in its communal roots, they say, but the public can be trusted to make the right decisions.

7. Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly? (Guardian)

Even doubters seem to be giving the military intervention one last chance, says John Kampfner, but there is little confidence it will succeed.

8. The year China showed its claws (Financial Times)

David Shambaugh looks at what lies behind Beijing's new assertiveness. Is it a case of true colours showing, a display of nationalism in the run-up to a change of leadership, or a sign of confidence gained from the vindication of the Chinese development model?

9. The Bank of England is right to hold its nerve (Independent)

Inflation is proving sticky, but it is premature to tighten monetary policy, says the main leader.

10. Hostage to hot air (Guardian)

Isabel Hilton says that the climate debate in the United States is mired in political weakness and infighting, setting the tone for unconstructive global negotiations.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

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.