Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. It's a myth the generations are at war. We're all in this together (Guardian)

Instead of starting a proxy war pitting old voters against young, politicians should be creating whole-family policies, writes Jackie Ashley. 

2. Bridging the poverty gap calls for bold ideas (Daily Telegraph)

Raising the minimum wage will help the poor, but it is no substitute for free-market reform, argues Jeremy Warner.

3. Only trust can dampen this inflamed anger (Times)

Recruiting more black officers is the best way to bring calm to the combustible streets of Tottenham, writes Philip Collins. 

4. Tomorrow holds both risk and riches (Financial Times)

Pressures for conflict in a more disordered planet are there for all to see, writes Philip Stephens. 

5. Gangsterism, not racism, was the root of Duggan’s shooting (Daily Telegraph)

Too many children on council estates are being drawn into a life of crime because work does not pay, says Fraser Nelson. 

6. Winter Olympics: one day the worm will turn against these gods of sport (Guardian)

After Vladimir Putin, how many more leaders will risk their nation's security and economy for an IOC mega-event, asks Simon Jenkins.

7. The strange case of the 'influential’ board (Daily Telegraph)

It was remarkable that Nadhim Zahawi decided to attack the National Planning Policy Framework, says Isabel Hardman. 

8. Free politics from intellectual vacuum (Financial Times)

Conservatives and progressives have to learn from each other, writes Michael Ignatieff.

9. There's no sense in querying the Mark Duggan jury (Independent)

To accuse them of being illogical or stupid is to reject what a jury is for, says Mary Dejevsky.

10. The stench of a cover-up over Libya grows (Times)

The refusal to release a report into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher may be due to official embarrassment, says Ben Macintyre.

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.