Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Lost illusions on Europe (Financial Times)

Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum, says an FT editorial.

2. Nothing in British politics is harder than welfare reform. The dogfight over it is a distraction (Independent)

The goal of delivering a fair, affordable welfare seems as distant as ever, writes Steve Richards.

3. How to follow the public money in a privatised NHS (Guardian)

Without basic financial transparency from public service contractors we can say goodbye to democratic accountability, writes Zoe Williams.

4. Losing one Lord a-leaping is unfortunate. Losing three at once should make Mr Cameron very worried indeed (Daily Mail)

The chances of the coalition fracturing completely are now perhaps higher than ever, says Simon Heffer.

5. Welfare cuts may bite the UK government (Financial Times)

When incomes rise and the Treasury refuses to raise social security, everyone will complain, says Chris Giles.

6. Europe’s dogmatic ruling class remains wedded to its folly (Daily Telegraph)

Proclamations of the euro’s salvation owe more to ideology than to the facts, says Peter Oborne.

7. Is the millennium’s biggest ego trip over? (Times) (£)

The left fête him as an anti-capitalist, anti-American saviour, but Hugo Chávez is just a strutting narcissist, says David Aaronovitch.

8. Don't dismiss privatised classes (Independent)

In education as in probation, public services must be about practicality not ideology, says an Independent editorial.

9. Tinker, tailor, soldier... and a central banker (Daily Telegraph)

The Treasury’s cloak-and-dagger interviews are hardly an advert for open government, writes Sue Cameron.

10. US energy: state of (semi-) independence (Guardian)

The relationships that America has with the rest of the world are bound to change both in scale and in intensity, says a Guardian editorial.

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.