What David Miliband's latest intervention means

The politics behind the Labour MP's New Statesman leader.

David Miliband's leader in this week's New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, is his most significant political intervention since his much-discussed attack on "Reassurance Labour" in the NS earlier this year. In an echo of that piece, the former foreign secretary mounts a critique of "defensive social democracy", an explicit rebuke to those in Labour who believe the party should simply ride the wave of discontent over austerity. He writes:

[I]f defensive social democracy delivers a win - and it is a big if- the problem will be with governing.

Miliband acknowledges that Labour has a bold economic narrative - "that Britain needs fundamental change in its market structure and culture to compete in the modern world." But he is clear that far more detail is needed for the party to convince voters that it represents a credible alternative to the coalition. In a significant overture to the Liberal Democrats, he suggests that the party should take Vince Cable's 2012 Budget submission to George Osborne, lamenting the lack of a "compelling vision" beyond austerity, and "promise to implement it." It is a statement that some in Labour will see as a snub to the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, who has set out his own five-point plan for growth.

Rather than simply renew commitments to "tax and spend", Miliband writes, Labour needs to make "switch spends". He highlights a proposal by IPPR, the think-tank where he worked before becoming Tony Blair's Head of Policy, to use a ten-year freeze on child benefit to pay for universal affordable childcare. It is a call for Labour to move beyond the dualistic approach of either supporting or opposing the coalition's cuts.

Miliband's fear is that Labour will "confuse being a better opposition with becoming a potential government". His praise for Jon Cruddas, the MP now leading the party's policy review, who Miliband notes is "not a policy wonk - a great advantage", is a sign that he believes Labour will avoid this trap. But his closing assertion that the Labour "cannot be conservative" is a warning to his brother not to appease the party's status quo faction.

David Miliband warns against "defensive social democracy" in his leader in this week's New Statesman. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.