Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. I’ll be voting to quit the EU (Times)

David Cameron’s attempts at renegotiation will be inconsequential – we must leave, writes Nigel Lawson.

2. The elite boast of little sleep, but it's those at the bottom who really suffer (Guardian)

Sleep proves how inequality touches even our most intimate lives – just ask those who toil for low pay with inadequate rest, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

3. David Cameron has two years left to summon up the spirit of 1992 (Daily Telegraph)

Despite the UKIP threat, the signs are growing that the PM can copy John Major’s upset, says Benedict Brogan.

4. Toxic smog smothers the Chinese dream (Financial Times)

Beijing may be ready to act over the country’s appalling pollution, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. Why the politics of envy are keenest among the very rich (Guardian)

Essential public services are cut in order that the wealthy may pay less tax, writes George Monbiot. But even their baubles don't make them happy.

6. Israel should seize the Arab League's offer (Independent)

Wherever the truth lies in Syria, Israel’s intervention has inevitably eclipsed the other potential development in her relations in the Arab world, writes Donald Macintyre.

7. It would be folly for Cameron to ape UKIP (Financial Times)

This is already an exceptionally conservative government, writes Janan Ganesh.

8. If we want more women in British boardrooms, we need to fix childcare and introduce quotas (Independent)

The Nordic countries have better conditions for being either a mum or a female CEO, writes Margareta Pagano.

9. Governments manage change. UKIP fears it (Times)

Anxiety about the modern world is understandable, but people must be helped to adapt, not encouraged to hide, says Rachel Sylvester.

10. Reforming the UN security council: mañana, mañana (Guardian)

After almost 70 years, it suffers from the twin deficits of representativeness and legitimacy, says a Guardian editorial.

Getty
Show Hide image

Benn vs McDonnell: how Brexit has exposed the fight over Labour's party machine

In the wake of Brexit, should Labour MPs listen more closely to voters, or their own party members?

Two Labour MPs on primetime TV. Two prominent politicians ruling themselves out of a Labour leadership contest. But that was as far as the similarity went.

Hilary Benn was speaking hours after he resigned - or was sacked - from the Shadow Cabinet. He described Jeremy Corbyn as a "good and decent man" but not a leader.

Framing his overnight removal as a matter of conscience, Benn told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I no longer have confidence in him [Corbyn] and I think the right thing to do would be for him to take that decision."

In Benn's view, diehard leftie pin ups do not go down well in the real world, or on the ballot papers of middle England. 

But while Benn may be drawing on a New Labour truism, this in turn rests on the assumption that voters matter more than the party members when it comes to winning elections.

That assumption was contested moments later by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Dismissive of the personal appeal of Shadow Cabinet ministers - "we can replace them" - McDonnell's message was that Labour under Corbyn had rejuvenated its electoral machine.

Pointing to success in by-elections and the London mayoral election, McDonnell warned would-be rebels: "Who is sovereign in our party? The people who are soverign are the party members. 

"I'm saying respect the party members. And in that way we can hold together and win the next election."

Indeed, nearly a year on from Corbyn's surprise election to the Labour leadership, it is worth remembering he captured nearly 60% of the 400,000 votes cast. Momentum, the grassroots organisation formed in the wake of his success, now has more than 50 branches around the country.

Come the next election, it will be these grassroots members who will knock on doors, hand out leaflets and perhaps even threaten to deselect MPs.

The question for wavering Labour MPs will be whether what they trust more - their own connection with voters, or this potentially unbiddable party machine.