Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Biden and McConnell's self-congratulation is unjustified (Guardian)

The fiscal cliff agreement is a jerry-built compromise that neither deals with the slump nor faces up to the long term, says a Guardian editorial.

2. Make nominal spending the new target (Financial Times)

As long as nominal GDP growth is stable, core inflation will remain well anchored, writes Scott Sumner.

3. Carping Labour must come clean about cuts (Times) (£)

The real divide is between those who offer leadership and those who offer only dissent, says Nick Clegg.

4. Now China's new leaders will have to work hard (Guardian)

How they deal with future economic challenges and the Tibet crisis will test whether the claim to wise meritocracy is credible, says Isabel Hilton.

5. America refuses to face up to reality (Daily Telegraph)

As the powerhouse of the world economy, America cannot continue to live in denial and expect to maintain its dominant role, says a Telegraph leader.

6. Housing is in crisis, yet the coalition does nothing (Guardian)

Scotland is taking the lead in housing the homeless, writes Lynsey Hanley. If only Westminster did likewise.

7. Africa is hooked on growth (Financial Times)

The success is not continent-wide but the best-managed countries are pulling it off, writes Sebastian Mallaby.

8. IDS’s rebirth is one of the wonders of the age (Independent)

Sacked by his party in 2003 on the twin grounds of being preternaturally incompetent and sensationally dim, Duncan Smith has reinvented himself, writes Matthew Norman.

9. The Commonwealth has never been stronger (Daily Telegraph)

This great institution promotes trade and freedom – no wonder there’s a queue to join, writes Hugo Swire.

10. We’re obese for the same reason we’re in debt – we prefer to forget the future (Independent)

Putting off hard tasks and difficult decisions costs humanity dearly, says Christina Patterson.

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.