Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Make no mistake: Iain Duncan Smith wants the end of social security (Guardian)

Don't let the bluster, incompetence and misinformation obscure the Quiet Man's true, Tory purpose: destroying the welfare safety net, says Zoe Williams. 

2. Now Labour could become the party of marriage and the family (Daily Telegraph)

Voters want leaders who can promise good care for their children and elderly relatives, writes Mary Riddell. 

3. Don’t wallow in victimhood. Rise above it (Times)

Figures such as Sharansky and Mandela understood that saying ‘it’s tough being me’ is self-destructive, writes Daniel Finkelstein. 

4. Asset managers could blow us all up (Financial Times)

When funding conditions turn, relying on cheap dollars to finance local assets can be lethal, says Martin Wolf. 

5. The Mandela coverage and the banality of goodness (Guardian)

To discuss Mandela alongside Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Jesus is barking mad, writes Simon Jenkins. I bet he's laughing his head off right now.

6. Taxes will rise if we reject the nanny state (Times)

We may resent encouragements to stop smoking and improve our health but we all benefit in the end, says Alice Thomson. 

7. Netanyahu’s refusal to attend Mandela’s memorial service speaks of Israel’s growing isolationism (Independent)

The Israeli prime minister's apparent devotion to penny-pinching represents a startling change of heart, says Matthew Norman. 

8. Why must our governments be so incompetent at IT? (Times)

If supermarkets and airlines can do it, so should civil servants, says Ross Clark. 

9. Despite the economic misery of the last five years, Europe remains a success story (Independent)

Now the target is human capital – clever, talented and rich people, writes Hamish McRae. 

10. As society ages, care leave is the new frontline (Guardian)

About 5 million people have given up work partly or entirely to look after others, writes Jackie Ashley. They need a bit of help and legal protection.

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