Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The coalition gives Clegg a veto on arming Syria (Independent)

The greatest vindication of the Lib Dem leader's decision to take his party into government may still be to come, says Mary Dejevsky.

2. Borrowing for homes and roads would be popular (Times)

George Osborne is in no position to give lectures on borrowing, writes Mark Ferguson.

3. What's holding Britain down isn't benefits. It's low pay (Guardian)

Our brand of capitalism has become cannibalistic, writes Zoe Williams. The minimum wage isn't enough, and has become a profound drag on our economy.

4. Ashcroft and the Tories should part company (Daily Telegraph)

The Conservative peer's vicious and damaging public criticisms of the PM have gone too far, says Peter Oborne.

5. Stephen Hester's departure is a huge gamble, and one I fear will backfire (Daily Mail)

Changing the captain at this stage could be a huge error and, in the end, actually slow repair and recovery, writes Alex Brummer.

6. Ahmadinejad: we’ll miss him when he’s gone (Daily Telegraph)

Iran’s president was the bogeyman the west loved to hate, writes Richard Spencer. But his successor will be much tougher to deal with.

7. Big data has to show it’s not Big Brother (Financial Times)

We do not know yet what this new technology of data analysis and artificial intelligence means, writes John Gapper.

8. Europe must condemn Erdoğan, but without hubris or illusions (Guardian)

Europe should support those who stand up for our shared values, but don't expect miracles from Turkish democracy, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

9. Do you mind being snooped on? Take a test (Times)

Whatever your view, we all need to trust those who act in our names and the laws governing their activities, says David Aaronovitch.

10. NSA surveillance: who watches the watchers? (Guardian)

It's not the widening of state intrusion that's wrong, but the weakening of the safeguards that should be there to protect us, says Paddy Ashdown.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.