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. 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while he would hold a free vote, party policy would be changed to oppose military action, an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote. Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, members made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbot and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet. There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.