Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten-must read pieces from this morning's papers

1. If you're disillusioned with Obama, you don't understand how he won (Guardian)

Gary Younge says that the distance between the aspirations Barack Obama raised and his record a year on is the distinction between the electoral and the political. Now he must move beyond lofty rhetoric to make a real difference.

2. Gordon Brown's election strategy is doomed, but you have to admire the cheek of it (Daily Telegraph)

The PM's bare-faced efforts to scare Mondeo Man away from the Tories will make this a roller-coaster election, says Matthew d'Ancona, discussing Brown's speech at the Fabian New Year Conference.

3. Don't blame the Haitians for doubting US promises (Independent)

Isabel Hilton asks whether the fate of this quake-ravaged nation will once again be decided by outsiders, and looks at its history to understand the context.

4. Fear of the poor is hampering Haiti rescue (Times)

Meanwhile, at the Times, Linda Polman argues that one reason aid is taking so long to get to those in need is that American views rule amid the rubble of Port-au-Prince.

5. Flu, fear and floods: how to avoid excessive precaution (Financial Times)

Money spent on preparing for disasters that do not occur -- or have a lower impact than anticipated -- is not all wasted, say Andrew Jack and Clive Cookson.

6. Polls dictate the state of play. And sometimes get it wrong (Guardian)

Julian Glover looks at the British poll, saying that the possibility of error in tracking voting intentions is increased by a spiral of silence. Labour shouldn't write off the election yet.

7. Put happiness on the election agenda (Independent)

We should consider the effect of policies on people's well-being, says Geoff Mulgan of the Young Foundation, citing research showing that public policy which considers happiness is much more effective.

8. They know it's all over bar the shouting (Times)

William Rees-Mogg discusses a new, critical report by the Institute for Government. After 13 years of personal infighting, even this academic study says, No 10 is out of control.

9. The full, sapping cost of the Blair-Brown war is now clear (Guardian)

Over at the Guardian, Jackie Ashley largely agrees. She says there are late signs of life, but years of infighting have drained Labour of the energy, ingenuity and imagination to rule.

10. A tale of two types of city (Independent)

The Independent's leading article discusses the widening economic gap between different conurbations in the UK.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

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.