Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. HS2 must terminate here. All change, please (Times)

I can no longer back high-speed rail, writes Alistair Darling. There are better ways to spend £50bn than on one line.

2. Ed, don’t listen to the advice – shouting louder won’t help you (Independent)

Miliband is not currently in a strong enough position to spell out his plans, says Steve Richards.

3. The financial crisis that refuses to go away (Daily Telegraph)

Emerging markets such as Brazil, India and Turkey have an outbreak of the jitters, and it’s hard to see a happy outcome, writes Jeremy Warner.

4. It's right to worry about security, but sometimes data trawls can be useful (Guardian)

For once the government has got something right – the NHS's electronic surveys could be more effective than randomised control trials, says Polly Toynbee.

5. India needs fixing – financially and morally (Independent)

The country's most famous economists, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati, have different solutions, writes Peter Popham. But both ignore one key problem.

6. Will people really stay married for £150 a year? (Times)

If Conservatives are serious about protecting the family it would make more sense to tighten up divorce laws, says Philip Collins. 

7. Why Ed Miliband will be Britain's next prime minister (Guardian)

The Labour leader understands the nature of the UK's economic problems, write John Denham and Peter Hain. With the support of his colleagues, he will win in 2015.

8. Wilberforce’s heirs are ready to tackle the great evil of the age (Daily Telegraph)

Britain helped stamp out slavery once – now Theresa May is trying to do the same again, says Fraser Nelson.

9.  Syria: chemical weapons with impunity (Guardian)

The options for response are all bad, and it is doubtful whether airstrikes would establish deterrence, says a Guardian editorial.

10. Productivity is not everything (Financial Times)

There is nothing wrong with the US economy a measure of redistribution would not put right, writes Samuel Brittan.

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.