Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Are the two Eds Attlee and Cripps – or Tory clones? (Daily Telegraph)

Miliband and Balls have sown confusion among Conservative opponents with their new economic approach, writes Mary Riddell.

2. Careless talk may cost the economy (Financial Times)

If the Fed had been more prudent, premature tightening might have been avoided, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Osborne must stick to his Scalextric model (Times

Any politician can talk big, but successful ministers don’t always speed to the finish line, writes Daniel Finkelstein. They plot a steady course.

4. Don't expect James Bond to act like Mother Teresa (Guardian)

Handing our personal data to the US Prism project is exactly how you'd expect our spies to behave, writes David Davis. That's why they need strict legal controls.

5. Egyptians must not let their country descend into chaos (Guardian)

President Morsi has made mistakes – but Egypt's opposition, by aligning with former regime members, is sidelining democracy, says Wadah Khanfar.

6. The old deserve every penny of their pensions (Times

Let’s avoid a battle of the generations, says Alice Thomson. Britain’s oldest citizens led much harder lives than today’s young.

7. Politicians who demand inquiries should be taken out and shot (Guardian)

From Stephen Lawrence to Bloody Sunday, an inquiry serves as the establishment's get out of jail free card, writes Simon Jenkins. 

8. The rest of us work when needed. Why can't the bolshy doctors' union grasp that? (Daily Mail)

For two decades, doctors have provided ever less effective out-of-hours cover, says Max Hastings. 

9. QE was fun while it lasted. Now it’s time for the cuts (Independent)

It's time to set out on the road back to monetary sustainability - and it's not going to be easy, says Hamish McRae.

10. Nice Sir Mervyn King still allowed the ship to crash (Daily Telegraph)

Despite the plaudits, the Governor of the Bank of England's economic theories were hopelessly misguided, says Iain Martin.
 
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.