Morning call: Pick of the papers

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

  1. Carney has a chance to kick-start the weak British economy (Financial Times)
    The BoE must spend some of its monetary policy credibility in search of a more robust recovery, writes Chris Giles.
  2. The potential prize from fracking is huge (Telegraph)
    There is bound to be some disruption, but shale gas could cut energy bills and fuel economic recovery, writes Michael Fallon.
  3. Happy birthday, national minimum wage (Financial Times)
    A sign that lasting popular institutions can still be built, writes John McDermott.
  4. The BBC should let its journalists have views (Times)
    It is ironic that the Corporation’s Trust has censured a right-of-centre viewpoint, writes Robin Lustig
  5. I don't want sympathy in life, I want dignity in death (Guardian)
    "Still the British courts won't permit assisted suicide in extreme situations such as mine. Well I'm not giving up the fight yet," writes Paul Lamb.
  6. Bradley Manning is no traitor but he must still go to jail (Times)
    The soldier’s supporters would change their tune if it was a right-wing activist leaking anti-immigration statistics, writes David Aaronovitch
  7. The Grace Dent Guide to Happiness (Independent)
    "I truly hope David Cameron is not developing policy around the deranged chunterings of anyone who found their happiness levels altered by the Diamond Jubilee," Dent writes.
  8. Once, the Tories understood rural Britain. Not any more (Guardian)
    The anti-fracking protest in Balcombe is just the tip of the iceberg. All over Britain, a new countryside rebellion is brewing, writes John Harris.
  9. Lewisham hospital will stay open - but only the lawyers have true cause to celebrate (Independent)
    The NHS's survival depends on the closure of services and even whole hospitals, writes Jeremy Laurance.
  10. Globalisation has a darker side – and it’s a challenge to us all (Telegraph)
    When things go wrong, nation states and their taxpayers will have to pick up the pieces, writes Iain Martin

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

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.