Why Labour isn't thanking Clegg for killing the boundary changes

Clegg was for the boundary changes before he was against them.

Given that he may have just handed the next election to Labour, you might ask why Nick Clegg isn't being hailed as a progressive hero by Ed Miliband's MPs this morning. The answer is that Labour still despises him for supporting the boundary changes in the first place. Clegg didn't merely accept the changes as a quid pro quo for the AV referendum (as the Deputy PM previously observed, they were never linked to House of Lords reform), he genuinely believed in them. In 2010, he told MPs:

There can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.

On another occasion, at Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions, Clegg declared:

It is one of the founding principles of any democracy that votes should be valued in the same way, wherever they are cast. Over the years, all sorts of anomalies have developed, such that different people’s votes are simply not worth the same in elections to this place. That surely cannot be right, and it is worth reminding those Opposition Members who object to the rationale that it was one of the founding tenets of the Chartists-one of the predecessor movements to the Labour party-that all votes should be of equal value.

As shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan noted:

It was left to Labour to fight the arbitrary reduction in the number of MPs. Getting rid of 50 MPs hits Labour the most, and that’s why the Tory-led Government chose that figure. It was nothing to do with better politics, or about saving money – particularly as this Government has created an extra 117 unelected peers since May 2010.

The reason yesterday's events will do nothing to enhance Clegg's standing is that he chose to rebel over a matter of politics, rather than a matter of principle (such as the NHS reforms or welfare cuts). The Deputy Prime Minister's reputation as a turncoat and an opportunist is secure. Once again, he has united both the left and the right in loathing for him.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Labour Party leader Ed Miliband attend a ceremony at Buckingham Palace. 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.