Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin

A match made in heaven

 

Ah, this is a beautiful thing. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (our cover story), facing each other on Fox this week, the Statue of Liberty looming in the background. About halfway through the clip, Glenn Beck leans across to Palin and searches for a personal connection:

You and I both were, I think, the number one and number two Halloween costumes of the year.

He carried on:

Did you know that? We both have been nailed on Saturday Night Live as being stupid. We are also both just recently voted on the Most Admired list of people in the world. We both have been on the cover of major magazines in the last year. We're both probably top five Most Hated People in America.

It's one way to bond. But this interview, if you watch it, is really the most amazing example of vague paranoia. They talk for the first ten minutes in the most part about "trust", the fact that there's no one you can trust, the moment they both realised that they could trust ANYONE AROUND THEM. I think they use the word trust approximately 48 times in the space of ten seconds.

Then there's the "system". Don't, for God's sake, get them started on the "system". Can you survive out of the "system", wonders Beck. "The system is broken," responds Palin. Not only that:

The system creates disenchantment with the people looking at the political system saying we don't like that.

The people! I nearly forgot about the people. Beck and Palin seem to have a hotline to the people. The people, all of them, seem to like exactly what they like and hate exactly what they hate. Why do they bother having elections when you could just ask these two?

 

 

Sophie Elmhirst is features 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.