Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. A short history of austerity: it almost never works (Guardian)

You have to be one of Vince Cable's 'austerity jihadists' to believe you can cut your way out of a slump, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. Labour and the Tories both think they'll lose 2015 and they can't both be right (Independent)

The mood in each camp is downbeat and introspective, but “Sorry we blew it last time" isn't the kind of slogan that wins elections, writes Steve Richards. 

3. Punish them, yes. But jail doesn’t fit this crime (Times) (£)

Huhne and Pryce broke the law, writes Rachel Sylvester. But locking them up in our expensive, overcrowded prisons serves no purpose.

4. Prison is the right place for Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce (Daily Telegraph)

If they’d got off lightly for swapping penalty points for speeding, how many others would be encouraged to test the legal system, asks Philip Johnston.

5. Prepare for endgame in North Korea (Financial Times)

The US and China should pool ideas on the nuclear threat, says Gideon Rachman.

6. If Cameron wants his troops to rally, he must act like a general (Daily Telegraph)

MPs would fight to the death for victory, but they need the PM in the trenches with them, says Benedict Brogan.

7. A mansion tax can stop this mountain of wealth crushing us (Guardian)

Labour barely breathed on the super-rich when in power, says Polly Toynbee. In backing a mansion tax, they are at last offering an alternative.

8. Time for the media to find a compromise on Leveson recommendations (Independent)

The sluggish progress that has followed the inquiry risks the worst possible outcome, says an Independent editorial.

9. Immigration exposes political weakness (Financial Times)

Conservatives are caught between the right and left, writes Stanley Greenberg.

10. I'm leaving the Liberal Democrats too (Guardian)

The justice and security bill will have a corrosive impact on individual rights, writes Philippe Sands. The party's support for it is a coalition compromise too far.

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.