Lord Bassam: "agonised" Lib Dems should co-operate with Labour

Labour's chief whip in the Lords attempts to woo his Lib Dem counterpart.

The next general election might be a good three years away, but that does not stop frequent speculation about what the next parliament might look like, and which way the Liberal Democrats would swing in the case of another hung parliament.

In the latest sign that Labour is thinking in exactly these terms, the party’s chief whip in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam, has written a letter to his Liberal Democrat counterpart, Lord Newby, urging him to meet with them more often. He wrote:

The last couple of years have been a bit bruising for your colleagues in this house, and no doubt they will be looking forward to a change of management to see if it brings some light relief.

. . .

I would keep a weather eye on the general election and thereafter. Your background as a flexible friend of other parties may come in handy. Keeping lines of communication open to the official opposition party might serve you well in the longer term.

It’s quite a leap for the man who tweeted in March: "I wouldn't want to wake up & find I was a Lib Dem today & have the selling of NHS on my conscience when I know I could say No."

Bassam’s overture to the Liberal Democrats is not particularly surprising in and of itself, as it follows reports that Vince Cable and Ed Miliband have been speaking on the phone, a sign of thawing relations.

However, the directness of the letter is striking. He goes on to urge Lib Dems to support Labour amendments, characterising them as "agonised souls trooping night after night into the Tory lobby to vote in favour of even more ghastly measures". He also says that the party faces another three years of being "the Millwall of British politics".

Direct, yes, but effective? That’s less certain. While Newby has declined to comment, the letter has not gone down well across the board. The Guardian quotes Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott as saying: "Sorry Steve, your charm offensive is all offensive and no charm. Calling us Millwall is not the way to build Lib-Lab co-operation on the red benches – if that's really your goal."

Indeed, no-one likes to be patronised, and Bassam’s characterisation of Lib Dems as the victims of coalition is damning with faint praise. But although several commentators have noted signs that Labour is relaxing its hostility to Nick Clegg’s party, it might be that they do not need to worry about the party not working with them. As our Liberal Democrat blogger Richard Morris wrote last month:

Does anyone really think after everything the Tories have thrown at us – including just the other week the Prime Minister telling his PPCs that he has effectively dealt with us  - that the odd insulting speech or overture to our support would block us dealing with Labour?

Given that Bassam's overture to support has apparently managed to be simultaneously insulting, Labour should hope that this is correct.
 

Members of the House of Lords. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for 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.