Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

  1. More spending? The coalition may as well build a bridge to the moon (Guardian)
    David Cameron and Vince Cable are both wrong. Infrastructure isn't the answer and nor is QE – money in pockets is, writes Simon Jenkins.
  2. Pay up for Nato or shut it down (Financial Times)
    Being prepared for new threats requires military capabilities but no one wants to pick up the bill, argues Philip Stephens.
  3. The crumbling Coalition is being torn apart by the post-Budget Public Spending Review (Telegraph)
    Deciding the contents of George Osborne's Budget has been relatively straightforward. How to divide the shrinking budgets is a battle that has taken on Bosnian complexity, says Fraser Nelson.
  4. David Cameron's very own magic money tree (Guardian)
    This speech outlines Cameron's strategic gamble of ploughing on with austerity and using quantitative easing as a palliative, writes Richard Seymour.
  5. Benefit tourists are just political phantoms (Times)
    It’s a myth that lazy foreigners are sponging off our welfare state. Our leaders ought to be straight with us, says Philip Collins.
  6. The man at Number 10 is not for turning (Financial Times)
    If the British government’s plan is working, what would a failing one look like, asks Martin Wolf.
  7. Ministerial rows over cuts show how much weaker Cameron and Osborne have become (Independent)
    The Tories now see the reality of public-spending cuts—and they don't like it, writes Steve Richards.
  8. It’s plain what George Osborne needs to do – so just get on and do it (Telegraph)
    The politics are tricky, but the Budget must confront some hard economic choices, insists Jeremy Warner.
  9. The Market Speaks (New York Times)
    Yes, the Dow Jones industrial average has been setting new records this week, but the message from the markets is actually not a happy one, says Paul Krugman.
  10. MPs reading the news? Pigs (and bats) might fly (Independent)
    There was a curious absence at DEFRA questions, writes Donald MacIntyre.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour to strip "abusive" registered supporters of their vote in the leadership contest

The party is asking members to report intimidating behaviour - but is vague about what this entails. 

Labour already considered blocking social media users who describe others as "scab" and "scum" from applying to vote. Now it is asking members to report abuse directly - and the punishment is equally harsh. 

Registered and affiliated supporters will lose their vote if found to be engaging in abusive behaviour, while full members could be suspended. 

Labour general secretary Iain McNicol said: “The Labour Party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and of campaigns to change society.

“However, for a fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn’t be shouted down, they shouldn’t be intimidated and they shouldn’t be abused, either in meetings or online.

“Put plainly, there is simply too much of it taking place and it needs to stop."

Anyone who comes across abusive behaviour is being encouraged to email validation@labour.org.uk.

Since the bulk of Labour MPs decided to oppose Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, supporters of both camps have traded insults on social media and at constituency Labour party gatherings, leading the party to suspend most meetings until after the election. 

In a more ominous sign of intimidation, a brick was thrown through the window of Corbyn challenger Angela Eagle's constituency office. 

McNicol said condemning such "appalling" behaviour was meaningless unless backed up by action: “I want to be clear, if you are a member and you engage in abusive behaviour towards other members it will be investigated and you could be suspended while that investigation is carried out. 

“If you are a registered supporter or affiliated supporter and you engage in abusive behaviour you will not get a vote in this leadership election."

What does abusive behaviour actually mean?

The question many irate social media users will be asking is, what do you mean by abusive? 

A leaked report from Labour's National Executive Committee condemned the word "traitor" as well as "scum" and "scab". A Labour spokeswoman directed The Staggers to the Labour website's leadership election page, but this merely stated that "any racist, abusive or foul language or behaviour at meetings, on social media or in any other context" will be dealt with. 

But with emotions running high, and trust already so low between rival supporters, such vague language is going to provide little confidence in the election process.