Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Why living costs and the deficit matter (Financial Times)

The party that persuades voters it can deal with both issues will win the election, says Gavin Kelly.

2. We need more homes, not easier mortgages (Times)

Cameron is right to focus on the family but Tories must not be afraid to unsettle the housing market, says Tim Montgomerie.

3. A conservatism is spreading that the Tories can't fathom (Guardian)

The party's neoliberal leaders are out of touch with exactly the kind of values that look likely to define our future, says John Harris.

4. I’m happy for my party to link with the Tories (Times)

UKIP has transformed the Conservatives, writes Nigel Farage. A deal with like-minded MPs makes sense.

5. We can’t afford welfare for disabled people, but apparently we can afford a marriage tax break (Independent)

This marriage tax allowance is nothing more than the state tutting at those who do not meet its expectations, writes Owen Jones.

6. The real reason the left's so livid about tax breaks for marriage (Daily Mail)

Labour's fury with the PM is mere displaced anger that the public's on his side, says Dominic Lawson.

7. A Syrian solution to civil conflict? The Free Syrian Army is holding talks with Assad's senior staff (Independent)

A secret approach to the President could reshape the whole war, writes Robert Fisk.

8. Leaders must speed up on climate change (Financial Times)

Businesses will watch governments to check they understand the IPCC findings, says Nicholas Stern.

9. Ed Miliband in power would be like a turbine on a windless day (Daily Telegraph)

It is astounding that people are falling for the opposition leader’s Wonga-like offer, writes Boris Johnson.

10. This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience (Guardian)

The party's real motive is to create a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and reward or punish people accordingly, writes Tanya Gold.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.