10 Questions for Vince Cable, post-Question Time

An open letter to the Business Secretary following our debate on BBC1.

Dear Vince,

Nice to see you last night in Liverpool. I just got home!

You've had a great week, with a strong speech to your party members at the Lib Dem conference followed by a fluent performance on Question Time. (You were also, I hear, a big draw at the NS fringe on "progressive austerity" in Liverpool on Monday.)

But QT is just too short for me. Sixty minutes? Call me greedy, but I wanted more time to continue our debate and discussion on the economy. If we'd had longer, and it'd just been you and me, here are the questions I'd like you to have answered for me:

1) You have referred to "slashing now" as "an act of economic masochism" (13 March 2010) and have said that "cutting too soon and pushing the economy back into recession will make the deficit worse, as tax receipts fall and benefit payments rise" (24 April 2010), so how can you now claim that your opponents are "deficit deniers" for making precisely the same case as you made only months ago?

2) You claimed last night on television that we were facing a financial "emergency" and that the deficit had to be confronted and cut down. But in your book, The Storm, you wrote that UK debt is "moderate in comparison with those of other countries" (p25) and that budget deficits of 13 or 14 per cent in the US and the UK were "not a great cause for alarm" (p144). How do you explain the disconnect?

3) You referred in your conference speech to the "spivs" and "gamblers" in the City, and denounced bankers' bonuses on Question Time, but bank shares rallied after your coalition's "emergency Budget" in June and Deutsche Bank, for example, described the Budget as a "good outcome for banks". Again, how do you explain the disconnect?

4) Nick Clegg said five days before the general election: "My eight-year-old ought to be able to work this out -- you shouldn't start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing." How is it that eight-year-old Antonio Clegg has a greater grasp of economic theory, and of the lessons of economic history, than you, Clegg or Danny Alexander?

5) Do the latest figures from the Republic of Ireland worry you? Make you doubt your support for immediate and widespread "austerity"?

6) How about the news from the eurozone?

7) You have said that John Maynard Keynes is your hero, but isn't Keynes turning in his grave right now? Why is it that all the leading Keynesian economists (Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, David Blanchflower, Robert Skidelsky, etc) are so opposed to your coalition's cuts?

8) Can you tell us when exactly you switched your position on cuts? The date and time, please?

9) In the green room before the programme was recorded, you and I discussed how much Liverpool had changed and progressed in recent years. So do you agree or disagree with the Lib Dem leader of Liverpool City Council, Warren Bradley, when he says that northern cities like his own "could be set back ten or 20 years" by the impact of your coalition's cuts?

10) You condemned monopolies and "rigged markets" in your conference speech. Will you promise to launch a review, on public-interest grounds, of Rupert Murdoch's bid to take full control of BSkyB? Or will you have to check with Andy Coulson first?

I hope you had a safe journey back to London.

Regards,

Mehdi

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

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.