Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

Why I, as a journalist and ex-editor, believe it is time to regulate the press (Observer

Will Hutton gives his support to the forthcoming Leveson report.

 

Despite the sabre-rattling, an attack on Iran is now unlikely (Independent on Sunday

 

Patrick Cockburn explains why it's now too late for Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

Gaza grabs the headlines as Congo once more descends into chaos (Observer

 

Ian Birrell calls for the world to pay more attention to the rebel takeover of Goma.

 

The first law of social work: politics trumps parental love (Sunday Times) (£) 

 

Minette Marin comments on the recent case of social workers removing a child from foster parents who were members of UKIP.

 

Unlike Europe, the Tories can bind together (Sunday Telegraph

 

Janet Daley excoriates the European governing class.

 

I see one last, if faint, hope for a truly free British press (Sunday Telegraph

 

Matthew D'Ancona argues that Cameron should offer the press "one last chance".

 

Why Dave doesn't give a hoot about the EU budget (Independent on Sunday

 

John Rentoul argues that Cameron is right to pursue a "wait-and-see" policy on Europe.

 

David Cameron's boldness over Europe does him credit (Sunday Telegraph

 

Iain Martin praises Cameron's tough stance during the EU budget negotiations.

 

Houdini Dave can slip the Leveson trap (Sunday Times) (£) 

 

Martin Ivens calls for a voluntary regulatory arrangement among newspapers.

 

Buck up Britain - regrets are mere whinges (Sunday Times) (£) 

 

India Knight says she has no time in life for regrets.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.