Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. London must be free to tax and spend (Financial Times)

Other capital cities have a wider tax base and more freedom to set rates, writes Tony Travers.

2. Big business mustn’t crush little guys in cars (Times)

If oil executives have fixed prices there should be a windfall tax and jail sentences, says Robert Halfon.

3. European Union: if the 'outs' get their way, we'll end up like Ukraine (Guardian)

There will come a point when Britain's relationship with the EU will change: to rush to the exit now would be a leap in the dark, says Vince Cable. 

4. France should face up to its fears (Financial Times)

The realisation of what is needed explains the people’s profound anxiety, writes Maurice Lévy.

5. Old Tory scepticism has won, yet Europe still ravages the party (Independent)

Eurosceptic anxiety under Blair was partly justified, says Steve Richards. They were right to be on their guard.

6. Have MPs learnt a thing since 2009? Their greed suggests not (Daily Telegraph)

The expenses scandal hasn't gone away, with politicians of all shades still milking the system, writes Peter Oborne.

7. Work on into your 70s. It will be good for you (Times)

Putting off retirement is good for the economy, writes Mark Littlewood. And people will be happier, healthier and wealthier too.

8. We have to decide to listen to sexually abused children (Guardian)

The cost of ignoring the girls involved in the Oxford case is too high, writes Zoe Williams. Why weren't they given this basic human respect

9. Who’s the odd one out in Europe? Not us (Independent)

France has left Germany's side and the public mood is heading south, writes Andreas Whittam Smith.

10. Mauling for Maude over his plans for change (Daily Telegraph)

Bernard Jenkin's select committee are putting the boot in over civil service reform, says Sue Cameron.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution