Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Anyone who believes in Britain's membership of the EU should stand up and be heard (Independent)

As ever with Europe, there is an appearance of flux while so much essentially remains the same, writes Steve Richards. When will pro-Europeans start to make their case?

2. Cameron strolls towards the EU exit, leaving us none the wiser (Daily Telegraph)

The PM’s failure to explain what he wants for Britain allows others to drive the debate, says Benedict Brogan.

3. If children lose contact with nature they won't fight for it (Guardian)

With half of their time spent at screens, the next generation will be poorly equipped to defend the natural world from harm, says George Monbiot.

4. Europe would lose if Britain left the union (Financial Times)

Brussels would not have to give much ground to keep the UK in the club, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. After Rowan, the Church is taken seriously (Times) (£)

For all his struggles, the Archbishop’s tenure may mark a turning point for Christianity, writes Richard Harries.

6. Another tricky balance for Mr Clegg to strike (Independent)

The Lib Dem leader is right to accept a temporary freeze on benefits, provided he can secure a meaningful wealth tax in return, says an Independent leaer.

7. No amount of moralising will alleviate the hardship caused by Tory austerity (Guardian)

For Iain Duncan Smith, poverty is caused by failure and dysfunction, writes Polly Toynbee. The reality is different, and Labour must say so.

8. The Lords must halt this draconian plan (Daily Mail)

Security considerations can be no justification for the draconian clampdown on open court hearings proposed, says a Daily Mail editorial.

9. Cameron is right to turn to the fixer (Financial Times)

Lynton Crosby might help the Tories fix their weakness without losing their strength, says Janan Ganesh.

10. Is the PM really at war, or simply deluded? (Daily Telegraph)

It was easy to agree with what David Cameron said yesterday, writes Philip Johnston. But harder to believe he’ll deliver.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.