Morning call: the pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from the morning papers.

1. David Cameron: ‘I have problems with the Thatcher legacy’ (Sunday Times) (£)

The coalition is floundering, yet David Cameron still exudes supreme self-confidence at the dispatch box. As he campaigns for this week’s local elections, Eleanor Mills pins him down

2. The best place to change the EU is the EU (Independent on Sunday)

Former European Commissioner for Trade Lord Mandelson says David Cameron is wrong to pick a fight with Europe.

3. You're only in it for yourself, Nigel: Top Tory donor's blistering open letter to UKIP leader (Mail on Sunday)

An open letter from Michael Ashcroft.

4. A crime mystery. It's going down, but no one really knows why (Observer)

Nearly all the so-called experts predicted that austerity would lead to more crime. The opposite is happening, says Andrew Rawnsley.

5. Human rights are worth fighting for (Sunday Mirror)

If there’s one thing that exposes the hypocrisy of the Tories as the so-called party of law and order, it’s human rights, says John Prescott.

6. Good policies can transcend Right and Left (Sunday Telegraph)

The welfare reform programme is a true instance of compassionate conservatism, says Janet Daley.

7. A contest between my two boys? That sounds like tremendous fun! It would be Bo-Jo v Jo-Jo (Mail on Sunday)

Stanley Johnson got the news late because he spilled wine on his phone. Now a proud father celebrates his son Jo's new job in No10.

8. It's fine to boost the arts, but we should first redefine them (Observer)

Given their importance to the British economy, we must think anew about our cultural industries, says Will Hutton.

9. Forget sarin — Assad crossed the red line with his first murder (Sunday Times) (£)

Are some methods of slaughtering our fellow humans more acceptable than others? Dominic Lawson says yes.

10. Boris and Jo Johnson: Two very different brothers with an eye on the big prize (Sunday Telegraph)

If Jo Johnson could borrow some of Boris’s magnetism there would be no limits to what he could achieve, says Bruce Anderson.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbott and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.