How low will the Lib Dems go?

Liberal Democrats fall to 12 per cent in new YouGov poll, their lowest rating since 2007.

There's more bad news for the Lib Dems in today's papers, with a Sunday Times/YouGov poll putting the party on just 12 per cent, their lowest poll rating since October 2007. By contrast, the Tories are on 42 per cent, with Labour on an impressive 38 per cent.

Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show this morning, Chris Huhne responded to the poll results by pointing out: "I can remember a time when we had opinion polls where we were just an asterisk. We were literally within the margin of error of zero."

A few months ago his leader spoke of replacing Labour as the second party. How the Lib Dems' ambitions have narrowed.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

chart

Hung parliament: Conservatives 12 seats short.

Most in the party are genuinely relaxed about their slide in the polls, explaining it away as what happens to a junior coalition partner until it has established itself in government. But unless the Lib Dems' ratings improve, we can expect tensions to grow in the run-up to the conference season.

The risk for the Lib Dems is that they will share the blame for things that go badly and take little of the credit for things that go well. As Janet Daley writes in the Sunday Telegraph:

The electoral problem for the Lib Dems is this: however much they may genuinely support and help to facilitate these reforms, they will not get the credit for them. If the schools and welfare reorganisations succeed, it will be Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith who will be seen as the authors of the triumph. But if they fail, or are unpopular, the Lib Dems will share the ignominy.

For the Conservatives, the fear is that the fall in Lib Dem popularity may eventually make the coalition unworkable, and that Lib Dem MPs, fearful of losing their seats, will begin to rebel to maintain their distinctiveness. But either way, both parties should prepare for much worse once those 25 per cent cuts kick in.

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.