Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Talk of ‘shirkers’ echoes Victorian past (Financial Times)

If for Beveridge the welfare state was a vehicle for social solidarity, this government uses it as a partisan dividing line, writes Tristram Hunt.

2. Assad could still hold power in Damascus a year from now (Independent)

The rebel insistence that Assad’s departure be a precondition for talks is unrealistic since he controls most of the Syrian population, says Patrick Cockburn.

3. The Tories have a moral mission – and David Cameron should say so (Daily Telegraph)

After Labour’s failures, Conservative reforms are about saving lives rather than money, writes Fraser Nelson.

4. US pivot gives Europe an opportunity (Financial Times)

Atlanticist nominations offer the continent a chance to break free of euro-crisis introversion, says Philip Stephens.

5. Britain and the EU: Europe's lost voices (Guardian)

Pro-Europeans should shed their anxieties, says a Guardian editorial. Voices that have been silent for too long need to make themselves heard.

6. Our interests come first, not those of America (Daily Telegraph)

The United States wants Britain to stay in the European Union for its benefit - not ours, says a Telegraph editorial.

7. A long way to go in our response to sex crimes (Independent)

Weaknesses in the police and criminal justice systems are only part of the problem, says an Independent editorial.

8. Grayling takes one step forward, then one giant step back (Guardian)

The reform of the probation services and closing of creaking Victorian prisons are welcome – but the plan for new mega-jails is a disaster, says Ian Birrell.

9. To do or not to do – that is the PM’s question (Times) (£)

If David Cameron wants to win in 2015 he must find a big problem to take on, says Philip Collins. Championing care of the elderly fits the bill.

10. Europe offers the best deal for Britain (Guardian)

Britain's future in Europe must be defined by its national interests, not those of the Conservative Party, says Menzies Campbell.

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.