Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Monday will be the day that defines this government (Guardian)

Those on low incomes, after all the vicious talk dismissing them as cheats and idlers, will be hit by an avalanche of cuts, writes Polly Toynbee.

2. Even now, after all that's happened to Cyprus, they’re queuing up to join the euro (Daily Telegraph)

It defies belief that Poland and others are still keen on joining the economic doomsday machine of the single currency, says Jeremy Warner.

3. Abu Qatada: the law won (Guardian)

The judges who ruled against the Home Office aren't woolly liberals, says Conor Gearty. They're just doing their job.

4. Let schools make money and we will all profit (Times)

Turn teachers into entrepreneurs and we will get the cash for the places we so badly need, says Philip Collins.

5. It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about (Daily Telegraph)

No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive, writes Fraser Nelson.

6. Burma in 2013 reminds me of Yugoslavia in 1991 (Independent)

Nobody thought civil war could break out then - and the same view holds strong in Burma now, writes Peter Popham. But violence this week may not be the end of it.

7. Britain can’t afford this level of immigration (Daily Telegraph)

The coalition is making headway in tackling large-scale immigration, but it needs to do far more, argue Frank Field and Nicholas Soames.

8. Cameron must listen to the Tory grassroots to stay on top (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister's decision to appoint right-winger John Hayes to the Cabinet Office is an encouraging one, says a Daily Mail leader.

9. Europe risks going too far on moral hazard (Financial Times)

Systemic risk now poses a greater threat to lenders, says Nicolas Véron.

10. Another tug at Britain’s unravelling energy plan (Independent)

Three energy ministers in only seven months does not inspire investor confidence, says an Independent editorial.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.