Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Protests around the world are keeping the spirit of Occupy alive (Guardian)

The unrest of 2011 is likely to last for decades, writes John Harris. From Istanbul to Rio, it's not about austerity, but the nature of the state.

2. Build homes. Give hope to the next generation (Times)

Housing shortages lead to many of our worst social problems, writes Tim Montgomerie. MPs should support Nick Boles, not the Nimbys.

3. The best cut of all? Shut the Treasury (Financial Times)

It is not easy to find any other body that has made so many mistakes, writes Philip Stephens.

4. When anti-gay bigotry is just another lock on the closet (Independent)

Is it surprising that those obsessed with gay sex may have a fondness for men, asks Owen Jones.

5. I supported Brazil's World Cup bid, but even I am against it now (Guardian)

This mega event can only deepen Brazil's problems, says Romario. The only beneficiary will be Fifa.

6. First-time voters key to election (Sun)

These are the New Libertarians, independent-minded and tolerant of social change but keen to see taxpayers keeping more of their own money, writes Trevor Kavanagh. 

7. Foreign aid is an investment in our future (Daily Telegraph)

Jobs and the free market are at the heart of a revolution in the way Britain offers help, argues Andrew Mitchell. 

8. Republicans are out of step with the times (Financial Times)

The gulf between the party base and the middle ground cripples its ability to field appealing candidates, writes Philip Stephens.

9. Triple the population – we’ll all be better off (Times)

Our planet is far from crowded, says Mark Littlewood. Doom-laden predictions about our future are wildly out.

10. It can't be done, George Osborne (Daily Telegraph)

Until the Chancellor tackles the relentless growth of 'social protection’, he will not make a dent in our deficit, says Jeff Randall.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.