CommentPlus: pick of the papers

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

1. Policy shouldn't be decided by those who shout loudest (Guardian)

Jackie Ashley argues that the government has so few women in it that it's no surprise their interests are absent from debates about the cuts.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

2. Cuts? What cuts? Public spending is rising (Times)

The Conservative MP, John Redwood claims that the idea that the nation must brace itself for savage retrenchment is a misconception. Just look at the facts.

3. The coalition must tackle the shortage of new homes (Daily Telegraph)

Britain's population is going to rise by 10 million over the next 20 years, says Boris Johnson, and it is vital for the government to invest in new housing.

4. A dramatic turn in West Virginia (Financial Times)

Clive Crook reports on a treacherous strategy in the Senate race -- a Democratic candidate is overtly campaigning against Barack Obama.

5. Merkel's own goal (Guardian)

Germany's leader is wrong about multiculturalism, says Philip Oltermann, even though a recent football match may have rattled her.

6. Why must some guilt be collective? (Independent)

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown discusses the burden of representation for black and Asian public figures, who are held to impossibly high standards.

7. A special plea (Times)

All departmental budgets will fall, says the leading article, but cuts to the science budget should be limited.

8. Shock and awe finances (Guardian)

Trade unionist Mark Serwotka argues that no public service cuts are needed, and outlnes a plan to deal with the deficit that is all about jobs, revenue and growth.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

9. Can they cut without killing the recovery? Independent)

The leading article looks ahead to Wednesday's comprehensive spending review, expressing hope that the coalition will show that two heads are better than one.

10. Both China and US are at fault in currency war (Financial Times)

Felipe Larraín fears the potential impact of the currency war on emerging markets in Asia and Latin America.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

Getty
Show Hide image

Could Jeremy Corbyn still be excluded from the leadership race? The High Court will rule today

Labour donor Michael Foster has applied for a judgement. 

If you thought Labour's National Executive Committee's decision to let Jeremy Corbyn automatically run again for leader was the end of it, think again. 

Today, the High Court will decide whether the NEC made the right judgement - or if Corbyn should have been forced to seek nominations from 51 MPs, which would effectively block him from the ballot.

The legal challenge is brought by Michael Foster, a Labour donor and former parliamentary candidate. Corbyn is listed as one of the defendants.

Before the NEC decision, both Corbyn's team and the rebel MPs sought legal advice.

Foster has maintained he is simply seeking the views of experts. 

Nevertheless, he has clashed with Corbyn before. He heckled the Labour leader, whose party has been racked with anti-Semitism scandals, at a Labour Friends of Israel event in September 2015, where he demanded: "Say the word Israel."

But should the judge decide in favour of Foster, would the Labour leadership challenge really be over?

Dr Peter Catterall, a reader in history at Westminster University and a specialist in opposition studies, doesn't think so. He said: "The Labour party is a private institution, so unless they are actually breaking the law, it seems to me it is about how you interpret the rules of the party."

Corbyn's bid to be personally mentioned on the ballot paper was a smart move, he said, and the High Court's decision is unlikely to heal wounds.

 "You have to ask yourself, what is the point of doing this? What does success look like?" he said. "Will it simply reinforce the idea that Mr Corbyn is being made a martyr by people who are out to get him?"