Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Gloomsters buried the euro too soon (Financial Times)

The end point looks likely to be tighter economic union that falls short of political federalism, writes Philip Stephens.

2. Accountancy's Big Four are laughing all the way to the tax office (Guardian)

Accountancy giants are paid huge sums by the state while helping firms strip it of desperately needed tax revenue, says Polly Toynbee.

3. For Cameron aid is not a badge. It’s a mission (Times) (£)

When the PM is compared to Harold Macmillan it’s usually derogatory, writes Philip Collins. But Africa shows them both at their best.

4. The EU has changed Britain – and mostly for the better (Independent)

Besides the money for infrastructure projects, EU membership has given Brits the chance to see how Europeans do things, and what we could do better, says Mary Dejevsky.

5. Time to protect the UK defence budget (Financial Times)

If necessary, aid spending must be used to shore up the MoD, argues an FT leader.

6. Cameron goes where Blair went before – but at what cost? (Independent)

The Prime Minister's decision to send troops to Mali is the product of an ill-defined nightmare of religious terrorism and "gesture" politics, writes Adrian Hamilton.

7. Our Armed Forces can’t survive on a diet of fudge, Mr Cameron (Daily Telegraph)

If the Prime Minister truly wants to confront the threat from Islamists in Africa, he must find the money to increase the defence budget, says Fraser Nelson.

8. Why can't we British make patriotic films like Spielberg's blockbuster? (Daily Mail)

The director's Lincoln is an unembarrassed hymn to the United States, writes Max Hastings.

9. Try to see economic opportunity in our current difficulties (Daily Telegraph)

Times are hard, but blood-curdling warnings about our financial predicament are wrong, argues Jeremy Warner.

10. We can count hard cash, but what is the value of beauty? (Guardian)

In planning, defenders of nature are 'nimbies', opponents 'vandals', writes Simon Jenkins. To end the shouting match we need a new language.

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.