Clarke won’t go – thanks to Miliband

The Justice Secretary’s resignation wouldn’t have been good news for Labour in any case.

Kenneth Clarke has apologised following his comments on rape and rape sentencing yesterday. It wasn't the apology that saved his career, though – it was Ed Miliband.

The moment Miliband called for Clarke to be sacked, Clarke was safe. Sacking Clarke, or shifting him sideways, could have been a fillip for David Cameron. He would have looked swift and decisive. It would have also thrown a bone to the increasingly peeved right of his party, who think that the Tories are going soft on crime. Clarke's Europhilia and liberal tendencies do not make him popular with elements of his own party. Miliband's call for Clarke's head, however, took the option off the table for Cameron. If he had bowed to Miliband, he would have looked spineless.

Instead it looks as if Clarke will survive, if he continues to show suitable contrition. The irony, as my colleague George Eaton points out, is that many in the Labour Party don't want him to go – at least, not thinking from a policy point of view. Indeed, many in Labour seem to agree with Clarke's prison policies, as the New Statesman blogger Dan Hodges points out. Clarke is a liberal and competent minister who is attempting to turn the UK away from its over-reliance on prisons.

In terms of general policy, Clarke and Miliband are not disimilar when it comes to sentencing. Even when writing in the Sun – when a leader of the opposition should be at his or her blustering best on law and order – Miliband called for sentencing reform. He wrote:

Tougher prison sentences aren't always the answer. I think there are times when people get locked up and come out as harder criminals. Some non-violent offenders can be better punished with a tough community sentence, working off their debt to communities over months rather than getting off with a few days in jail.

Clarke is attempting to enact this type of policy. If he goes, the policy goes with him. What he said was stupid and betrayed a depressingly common prejudice that some rapes are not "serious" or violent, and he was right to apologise. But Miliband should not have called for him to go.

Even if Clarke were to be sacked and a more authoritarian justice secretary replaced him, Cameron would have looked weak briefly, but at what cost to Miliband and Labour? If Dominic Grieve had come in and started hammering criminals, there would have been no boost for Labour. No one – least of all Conservative politicians – loses votes for locking too many people up.

Yesterday was bad politics by Miliband. As Steve Richards points out in the Independent, a "leader of the opposition cannot call on ministerial resignations too often". With this in mind, Miliband has played his hand too early. Clarke won't go – and Miliband shouldn't want him to.

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.