Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Our response to the pensions challenge is still locked in its infancy (Daily Telegraph)

Ed Balls has won praise for addressing Britain’s old age problem, but he must go further, says Mary Riddell. 

2. Labour’s great surrender on public spending (Times)

By accepting Osborne’s spending plans it’s clear that all the main parties will have to make dramatic cuts, writes Daniel Finkelstein. 

3. The overstated inflation danger (Financial Times)

A high rate may be a risk in the very long run – but right now the risk is that it may be too low, writes Martin Wolf.

4. To combat tax avoidance, tough talk is not enough (Guardian)

David Cameron must deliver a concrete plan of action at the G8 summit, says Margaret Hodge. It's a crucial test of his leadership.

5. Erdogan’s focus should be his own party (Financial Times)

The real action will now take place in the Turkish prime minister’s AKP, writes David Gardner.

6. NSA surveillance: The US is behaving like China (Guardian)

Both governments think they are doing what is best for the state and people, says Ai Weiwei. But, as I know, such abuse of power can ruin lives.

7. Thames Water avoiding tax is the final insult (Daily Mail)

These firms have exploited Britain’s soft-touch regulation, and the fear of successive governments of intervening to protect consumers, writes Alex Brummer. 

8. Once again, the nationalists decide independence is all about sharing (Daily Telegraph)

Picking and choosing on pensions shows the SNP's determination to pretend breaking up Britain would be pain free, says Alan Cochrane. 

9. Time for a rethink on GM crops (Independent)

The dire prophecies of Frankenstein foods have not come to pass, says an Independent editorial. 

10. Tax cutters should welcome a bit of state intervention (Times)

Social breakdown drives much of the growth in spending, writes Ruth Porter. 

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.