Ed Miliband: tough on parasites

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the Labour leader talks about reforming capitalism - and practises a little pest control.

Today's Daily Telegraph carries an interview with Ed Miliband, written by former editor Charles Moore. In it, the Labour leader expands on one of the themes he explored in the New Statesman last week: his plan to "remake capitalism".

He tells Moore:

'I am now much clearer than I was two years ago about the depth of change we need. . . Tony and Gordon were products of their historical circumstances.’ They had to break with the past, but in the process, New Labour became too credulous about business: 'The consensus around regulation ['light touch’] turned out to be really problematic.’ The project became 'too easy and accepting’ about globalisation: 'It’s just not true that all the top CEOs will leave the country unless we pay them whatever they demand’.

The interview picks up on some concrete policy proposals: there is a "strong case" for making takeovers more difficult, and ordinary employees should be represented on the committees which decide executive pay. Miliband also believes that there are too few banks and that the "big six" energy companies have a stranglehold on supply. He adds that wealth is created by "the private sector working with the government. We shouldn't be ashamed of wanting an industrial policy".

Miliband is careful to reassure Telegraph readers that a top 50% tax rate is the limit for him and that it's fine to be rich "if you make it the hard way".

He also manages to swat a mosquito which has settled on Charles Moore's shoulder:

With a commanding show of decision, Mr Miliband squashes it, spattering its remarkably copious blood over my light grey suit. So that’s how he deals with capitalist parasites.

Perhaps he's been taking tips from Barack Obama:

 

Ed Miliband: "It's just not true that CEOs will leave unless we pay them whatever they demand". Photo: Getty

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

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.