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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.