Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Do people get Osborne and co yet? Even Thatcher wouldn't have gone this far (Guardian)

Many still don't realise how far this government is bent on dismantling the public realm, says Polly Toynbee. Labour has to show us a way out.

2. Our fortunes rest on the Bank’s great money-printing machine (Daily Telegraph)

There were two Budgets delivered this week – and it’s the second one involving the Bank of England that really matters, says Fraser Nelson.

3. Homes ruse will not rebuild the economy (Financial Times)

The market cannot sensibly finance such high loan-to-value ratios, says Martin Wolf.

4. Osborne should stick to what he does best . . . (Times)

... and that’s not being Chancellor, says Philip Collins. This government badly needs a full-time political strategist to stop the rot.

5. Barack Obama's mission for Israel (Guardian)

The US president has learned from his first-year follies, writes Aluf Benn. But are we Israelis smart enough to listen to his message?

6. If Cyprus falls into Putin's grip, the West will have lost the first battle in the new Cold War (Daily Mail)

The Russian president sees the humiliation of the hated west as the prime goal in his desire to restore his country's greatness, writes Edward Lucas.

7. Erdogan should pursue lasting truce with the PKK (Independent)

The conflict between Turkey's government and its Kurdish population will only get worse if no agreement is reached, writes Patrick Cockburn. A ceasefire might last this time.

8. Middle East needs more than fine words (Financial Times)

John Kerry’s good intentions are worthless if the US president is not ready to take risks, writes Philip Stephens.

9. An ambiguous Archbishop (Independent)

Dr Welby knows that changing views within the Anglican Communion is akin to turning an oil tanker, says an Independent editorial.

10. George Osborne's sugar pills won't heal the pain, but Julia Gillard's may (Guardian)

The placebo effect has its place beyond medicine – as long as those who soothe us do so with our best interests at heart, writes Gaby Hinsliff.

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.