Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Xi Jinping and Barack Obama: two leaders facing very different crises (Guardian)

China's new leader faces deeper challenges than the US President, writes Timothy Garton Ash. We must hope they are met: it could be a matter of war and peace.

2. A good day for Cameron, but a rout for the Tory right’s vision (Daily Telegraph)

Cameron and Osborne must learn from Mitt Romney’s defeat and rethink Conservative election strategy for 2015, says Peter Oborne.

3. Obama shattered the GOP’s delusions (Financial Times)

Republicans have been evicted from their state of denial, writes Simon Schama.

4. Barack Obama's second term: change he can believe in (Guardian)

The change that Obama heralded before his first term as president may finally be on its way, says a Guardian editorial.

5. Beware a modern Salem over child abuse (Times) (£)

Pursuing witch hunts is as dangerous as ignoring victims, writes David Aaronovitch. Don’t launch inquiries on the back of lurid claims.

6. President has allies to unlock Congress (Financial Times)

Obama and businesses seeking stability can help each other out of a fix, writes John Gapper.

7. The debate about wealth must start with morals (Guardian)

We often end up arguing for equality on the basis of outcomes, rather than principle, writes Zoe Williams. But decent pay is only fair.

8. It’s time for a Republican Party clear-out (Daily Telegraph)

The party's sound economic policies are being drowned out by the strident voices of dubious fringe figures, writes Anne Applebaum.

9. Obama's victory is a triumph for science over superstition (Independent)

Karl Rove, and the delusional wing of the Republican party, will be forced still deeper into their reality-defying bunker, writes Matthew Norman.

10. New dawn? This looks more like a new dusk (Daily Mail)

The second Obama term will increase the deficit, further diminishing America’s economic power and credibility, says Simon Heffer.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Are the Conservatives getting ready to learn to love the EEA?

You can see the shape of the deal that the right would accept. 

In an early morning address aimed half reassuring the markets and half at salvaging his own legacy, George Osborne set out the government’s stall.

The difficulty was that the two halves were hard to reconcile. Talk of “fixing the roof” and getting Britain’s finances in control, an established part of Treasury setpieces under Osborne, are usually merely wrong. With the prospect of further downgrades in Britain’s credit rating and thus its ability to borrow cheaply, the £1.6 trillion that Britain still owes and the country’s deficit in day-to-day spending, they acquired a fresh layer of black humour. It made for uneasy listening.

But more importantly, it offered further signs of what post-Brexit deal the Conservatives will attempt to strike. Boris Johnson, the frontrunner for the Conservative leadership, set out the deal he wants in his Telegraph column: British access to the single market, free movement of British workers within the European Union but border control for workers from the EU within Britain.

There is no chance of that deal – in fact, reading Johnson’s Telegraph column called to mind the exasperated response that Arsene Wenger, manager of Arsenal and a supporter of a Remain vote, gave upon hearing that one of his players wanted to move to Real Madrid: “It's like you wanting to marry Miss World and she doesn't want you, what can I do about it? I can try to help you, but if she does not want to marry you what can I do?”

But Osborne, who has yet to rule out a bid for the top job and confirmed his intention to serve in the post-Cameron government, hinted at the deal that seems most likely – or, at least, the most optimistic: one that keeps Britain in the single market and therefore protects Britain’s financial services and manufacturing sectors.

For the Conservatives, you can see how such a deal might not prove electorally disastrous – it would allow them to maintain the idea with its own voters that they had voted for greater “sovereignty” while maintaining their easy continental holidays, au pairs and access to the Erasmus scheme.  They might be able to secure a few votes from relieved supporters of Remain who backed the Liberal Democrats or Labour at the last election – but, in any case, you can see how a deal of that kind would be sellable to their coalition of the vote. For Johnson, further disillusionment and anger among the voters of Sunderland, Hull and so on are a price that a Tory government can happily pay – and indeed, has, during both of the Conservatives’ recent long stays in government from 1951 to 1964 and from 1979 to 1997.

It feels unlikely that it will be a price that those Labour voters who backed a Leave vote – or the ethnic and social minorities that may take the blame – can happily pay.  

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