Show Hide image

Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron is paying the price for grievous lapse of judgment (Daily Telegraph)

After Rupert Murdoch and Maria Miller errors, Downing Street needs shaking up if the Prime Minister’s credibility with voters is to be restored, says Peter Oborne. 

2. After Maria Miller, the good news is that MPs can change (Guardian)

The culture secretary's thoroughly modern departure will prompt reform, although mistrust in politics still presents a wider problem, writes Martin Kettle. 

3. The first of Thatcher’s children has arrived (Times)

Maria Miller’s resignation will soon be forgotten, writes Tim Montgomerie. But her replacement could make a lasting impression on politics.

4. Rising inequality is Asia’s main challenge (Financial Times)

Much of the benefit of economic growth goes to those who were already better off, writes David Pilling. 

5. Orwell would loathe this leftie gobbledegook (Times)

The vacuous advice recently offered to Ed Miliband is indicative of the lack of thinking at the heart of the left, says David Aaronovitch. 

6. Mess and muddle as the Scots’ vote looms (Daily Telegraph)

Westminster is making no plans for a Yes vote on Scottish independence, and the Civil Service’s neutrality is under fire, writes Sue Cameron. 

7. Venezuela shows that protest can be a defence of privilege (Guardian)

Street action is now regularly used with western backing to target elected governments in the interests of elites, writes Seumas Milne. 

8. Let's imagine the UK votes to leave the EU. What happens next? (Independent)

It’s a realistic prospect, and now brilliant young diplomat Iain Mansfield has come up with the answer, writes Andreas Whittam Smith. 

9. An Osborne ‘I told you so’ is justified (Financial Times)

The UK chancellor has suffered much abuse – he is only giving what he has received, says Chris Giles.

10. The working classes don't want to be 'hard-working families' (Guardian)

The rhetorical label 'hard-working families' has won Labour no voters and ignores the true nature of social change, says Selina Todd. 

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.