Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. George Osborne's optimism disappears in autumn statement (Guardian)

The chancellor's bright-eyed optimism that served as the coalition's defining mission turns to dust in the Commons, writes Jonathan Freedland.

2. Time to use room for manoeuvre (Financial Times)

It is specious for Osborne to blame events beyond government control, says Martin Wolf.

3. We can see clearly on smog. So why not CO2? (Times) (£)

The arguments of climate-change sceptics are eerily reminiscent of those made by opponents of the Clean Air Act, writes David Aaronovitch.

4. Chancellor makes best of bad job (Financial Times)

There may be worse to come but Labour has been left scratching its head, says Janan Ganesh.

5. A seasonal warning on rape? Don't ask a Met policeman (Guardian)

There's nothing here to reduce sex crime or even any admission of officers' failure – just hyper-caution for the yet-to-be-raped, says Zoe Williams.

6. The day the Chancellor reneged on his promise (Daily Telegraph)

Osborne’s fiscal gutlessness in this budget shows a failure to engage with the enormity of the crisis, argues Peter Oborne.

7. Old rivalries stir in Japan and Korea (Financial Times)

The differences in the elections in Asia’s second and fourth-largest economies are striking, writes David Pilling.

8. We may never learn to love the Chancellor, but the alternative would be so much worse (Daily Mail)

Osborne's medicine may be harsh but Ed Balls would be economic poison, says Max Hastings.

9. Phoney war with Syria is better than a real one (Independent)

Signs that Assad might use his chemical weapons could change the rules, says an Independent editorial.

10. A global battle for internet freedom puts Leveson in perspective (Guardian)

There's no reason ethical standards have to slip online, writes Timothy Garton Ash. The real challenge for journalism is how to make the internet pay.

Getty
Show Hide image

Benn vs McDonnell: how Brexit has exposed the fight over Labour's party machine

In the wake of Brexit, should Labour MPs listen more closely to voters, or their own party members?

Two Labour MPs on primetime TV. Two prominent politicians ruling themselves out of a Labour leadership contest. But that was as far as the similarity went.

Hilary Benn was speaking hours after he resigned - or was sacked - from the Shadow Cabinet. He described Jeremy Corbyn as a "good and decent man" but not a leader.

Framing his overnight removal as a matter of conscience, Benn told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I no longer have confidence in him [Corbyn] and I think the right thing to do would be for him to take that decision."

In Benn's view, diehard leftie pin ups do not go down well in the real world, or on the ballot papers of middle England. 

But while Benn may be drawing on a New Labour truism, this in turn rests on the assumption that voters matter more than the party members when it comes to winning elections.

That assumption was contested moments later by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Dismissive of the personal appeal of Shadow Cabinet ministers - "we can replace them" - McDonnell's message was that Labour under Corbyn had rejuvenated its electoral machine.

Pointing to success in by-elections and the London mayoral election, McDonnell warned would-be rebels: "Who is sovereign in our party? The people who are soverign are the party members. 

"I'm saying respect the party members. And in that way we can hold together and win the next election."

Indeed, nearly a year on from Corbyn's surprise election to the Labour leadership, it is worth remembering he captured nearly 60% of the 400,000 votes cast. Momentum, the grassroots organisation formed in the wake of his success, now has more than 50 branches around the country.

Come the next election, it will be these grassroots members who will knock on doors, hand out leaflets and perhaps even threaten to deselect MPs.

The question for wavering Labour MPs will be whether what they trust more - their own connection with voters, or this potentially unbiddable party machine.