Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. We in the Gaza Strip will not die in silence (Guardian)

If the world will not defend the Palestinians against Israel, we have the right to defend ourselves, says Musa Abumarzuq.

2. Lynton Crosby is a disastrous signing for the Tories (Independent)

The Tories have appointed a man who could undermine all that David Cameron stands for and whose approach risks long-term damage to the party brand, writes Ian Birrell.

3. Is this the death of the Republican party? No chance (Guardian)

Republican courting of white people was based on strategy not principle, writes Gary Younge. To reach out wider would not require a great leap.

4. Don’t get frothed into a right-wing bubble (Times) (£)

‘Political entertainment’ could be as harmful to the Conservative Party as it has been for the US Republicans, writes Tim Montgomerie.

5. UK must be an active RBS investor (Financial Times)

The government must not be hamstrung by its commitment to keep RBS out of full state control, says a Financial Times editorial.

6. As the 'gates of hell' open once more in the Middle East, these old journalistic clichés won't do (Independent)

Whether it's 'surgical air strikes', 'rooting out terror' or 'cyber-terrorism', the stench of hypocrisy is rife, says Robert Fisk.

7. For Britain, the EU is good value for money (Guardian)

The UK's demands for cuts to the EU budget are wrong-headed, and a veto would backfire, says Radosław Sikorski.

8. Not a single penny more for the EU’s begging bowl (Daily Telegraph)

The demand for a budget increase amid such an abuse of public funds is outrageous, says Boris Johnson.

9. Obama’s path to Xanadu runs via Jerusalem (Financial Times)

If the US President can build "strategic trust" with China in the Middle East, the habit could take hold elsewhere, writes Edward Luce.

10. Vince’s mansion tax rises from the dead (Daily Telegraph)

The mansion tax – or whatever form the Quad’s bargain eventually takes – is not a coherent approach to economic management, says a Daily Telegraph leader.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.