London calling the shots

London Labour has been buoyed by election results thought impossible a year ago.

So, the one definite thing in what happens next is that Gordon Brown won't be a part of Labour's future.

The other certainty is the release of the grip that Scottish politicos have had over the Labour Party -- and British politics by default.

Power fills a vacuum, and that hole has already been filled by Labour London, which has created a formidable fighting machine and is buoyed by election results thought impossible a year ago. It is the kingmaker that will decide if David Miliband will take over.

The political map of the capital now has a solid core of red. It controls eight more Labour councils, having gained more than 180 councillors. Westminster seats were secured despite Ashcroft cash; the party held Hammersmith -- home of the Conservative easyCouncil project -- plus Westminster North and Tooting. And it won the marginals of Harrow North and Enfield.

The BNP and Respect were seen off by what Tessa Jowell called "highly targeted campaigns", run by disciplined and focused teams which get the job done with little fuss.

And now the area organisers are looking for both blood and payback. Labour central had already been told that Brown was no longer an asset. "This makes it easier to put the knives in," was the reaction by one activist to the PM's statement.

What is not generally known is that a team within London Labour -- including senior MPs from the capital -- had quietly opened negotiations with the Liberal Democrats over power-sharing months ahead of the election to lay the groundwork for a deal.

Ed Balls is out of favour (too close to Brown), but David Miliband cannot take support as a given: London members long ago tired of being taken advantage of.

The local party's intense focus is now on the city's mayoral race, which it believes is for the taking with a decent "non-Ken" candidate.

"Oona [King] is a possible, but she's got a life outside politics and needs some convincing," said one Hackney activist.

London Labour is confident it can turn a possible bid by Boris Johnson for David Cameron's job into a chicken run -- and the Tories are seriously worried by the Labour turnout.

One Tower Hamlets member reflected on Winston Churchill's wartime coalition as its 60th anniversary fell this week: "This is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. We're just getting started; it's time one or two in the party sat up and took notice."

Chris Smith is news editor for the MJ and a former lobby correspondent. A specialist on UK government at all levels, he has written for the Guardian, the Times, Sunday Times, the Channel 4 News election FactCheck, Auto Express, HSJ and ePolitix.com.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

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.