Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The young are doomed – and only the old can save them (FT)

Twentysomethings are being forced to delay adulthood, writes Chris Cook.

2. The Paul Flowers affair confirms it: 2015 will be a dirty election (Guardian)

From the Co-op to Mid Staffs, the Tory smear machine is operating at full throttle – and it won't relent till polling day, says Jonathan Freedland.

3. Slavery wasn’t abolished two centuries ago. It thrives in Britain today (Times) (£)

Human trafficking is the fastest-growing human international crime. We need a Modern Slavery Act, says Lucy Maule.

4. This obsession with Ethics is one of the great curses of our time (Telegraph)

Charles Moore: Paul Flowers and the Co-op Bank thought they were so good they couldn’t possibly be bad.

5. Iran can be made a force for Middle Eastern peace (FT)

Tehran wants to end the sanctions and to be seen as a legitimate Middle Eastern power, writes David Gardner.

6. 180 years after abolition, why is it the slave trade is booming? (Guardian)

We equate slavery with a bygone age. But as the case of three women found in a London house shows, it is far from dead, says Danny Smith.

7. China: now an example to the world on climate change? (Telegraph)

The climate change talks in Warsaw are going nowhere - but in the real world China and the US are both finally taking action to curb coal-fired power stations.

8. Why India Is Going to Mars (International New York Times)

The red planet isn’t just about horoscopes. We can live with superstition, and science, writes Manoj Kumar Patairiya.

9. 'Hutching up' – how London's housing crisis has young people at it like rabbits (Guardian)

Harriet Walker: Unaffordable rents mean couples are choosing to live together too soon, or doomed to stay together to avoid the misery of flatsharing.

10. A universal income is not such a silly idea (FT)

The concept of paying people to sit around has an upside, writes Tim Harford.

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.