Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Be bold, Labour, and expose Osborne's skivers v strivers lie (Guardian)

Osborne's below-inflation benefit rise may not be as popular as he thinks, says Polly Toynbee. Labour can, and must, make the case against.

2. Young lives are being ruined because of our timid Treasury (Daily Telegraph)

Bold tax cuts in Sweden and Estonia show how to tackle austerity – and create growth and jobs, says Fraser Nelson.

3. A reality check for Alex Salmond (Independent)

Far from business-as-usual in its relations with Europe, a go-it-alone Scotland will have to start again from scratch, says an Independent leader.

4. Labour must cut its dependency on welfare (Times) (£)

Miliband's party cannot afford to lose the argument over welfare and the longer it refuses to tackle the problem the more likely such a defeat becomes, says Philip Collins.

5. The west must prepare for Syria’s endgame (Daily Telegraph)

The rebels’ capture of airfields and military bases has speeded up the collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, writes

6. Forget the fiscal cliff: buy America (Financial Times)

The strengths of the US far outweigh its weaknesses even without cheap gas, writes Philip Stephens.

7. The Tories who jeered Ed Balls's stammer are as bad as playground bullies (Independent)

As a fellow stammerer I know this mysterious condition has nothing to do with getting your facts wrong and everything to do with the tricks of uncertain speech, writes Margaret Drabble.

8. Oh, please! Don’t play the victim card, Mr Balls (Daily Mail)

For the nastiest bully in politics to blame his stammer for his Commons disaster is rank hypocrisy, says Quentin Letts.

9. If only saying nothing were an option for William Hague of the FO (Guardian)

As Northern Ireland goes up in flames, our foreign minister still lectures other states on nation-building, writes Simon Jenkins.

10. Stale debate holds back Britain’s recovery (Financial Times)

Partisan bickering could be avoided with a division into three elements, says Samuel Brittan.

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.