A good week for Gordon Brown

Three pieces of good news for Brown

So, despite the vehement campaign against him by Britain's biggest-selling daily paper, this has turned into a good week for Gordon Brown. It may have been unthinkable for Labour not to win last night's by-election in Glasgow North-East, a seat it has held for 74 years, but few expected the party to triumph by the margin it did.

The by-election victory was the third piece of good news Brown has had this week. First, a Times/Populus poll on Tuesday demonstrated that a hung parliament remains a distinct possibility at the next election. The Conservatives' lead of 10 points would translate into a Commons majority of only two.

Second, a PoliticsHome poll revealed that 65 per cent of voters believe the Sun's reporting of Brown's letter to Jacqui Janes became an "inappropriate attack", and that almost half of the electorate is now more inclined to defend the Prime Minister.

Perhaps buoyed by these figures and the by-election success, Brown gave the most articulate and fluid performance I've heard from him for weeks on the Today programme this morning.

Professor John Curtice noted the key to Labour's success last night when he observed: "They fought as the opposition to the SNP." But he provided a sober dose of reality when he pointed out: "The recipe for success in Glasgow is not one that can be repeated in England and Wales."

Lord Mandelson and Harriet Harman have attempted to mount an insurgent campaign by consistently referring to Labour as the "underdog". But in England at least, the party continues to be seen as the establishment.

In order to change this, Labour must gamble on a referendum on electoral reform before the next election. The Conservatives remain wedded to the unjust first-past-the-post system. Perhaps on this issue alone, David Cameron would be left defending the status quo.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.