Miliband’s U-turn on Clarke

The Labour leader has distanced himself from his call for the Justice Secretary to be sacked.

Ed Miliband has distanced himself from his call for Kenneth Clarke to be sacked over his comments on rape. Writing in the Independent, the leader of the opposition argues:

The slide from grace of Ken Clarke has caused some glum faces amongst those who believe in a better penal. People who share my belief in prison reform as part of a policy to cut crime are worried as they see him being edged towards the cabinet room exit door.

They are wrong.

The necessary reforms to our justice system will never be carried out successfully by a government, and by those like Ken Clarke and David Cameron, who are so woefully out of touch with the real world.

The tone of the piece is curious. It gives the impression that Miliband no longer thinks Clarke should be sacked. The column is a defence of Miliband's comments, rather than a reiteration of them. Miliband had 600 words to call for Clarke's sacking and failed to do so.

This is a U-turn, particularly when compared to what Miliband said in the Commons on Wednesday. Here's Hansard:

When the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, he should go and look at the comments of the Justice Secretary – and let me just say to him very clearly: the Justice Secretary should not be in his post at the end of today. That is the first thing the Prime Minister should do. The second thing he should do is to drop this policy, because this policy, which they are defending, is the idea that if you plead guilty to rape you get your sentence halved. [Emphasis added]

Miliband was emphatic in the Commons. Yet two days later – and with Clarke looking safe in his position – the Labour leader has changed his tune. As I pointed out yesterday, Miliband cannot call for the heads of ministers willy-nilly without beginning to look like the boy who cried "wolf". No wonder he's trying to distance himself from the comment.

Calling for Clarke to go was bad politics because it was a call that was likely to go unheeded, particularly when Labour and the Conservatives have broadly similar policies with regard to sentencing in general. But rather than attempt to build a case for progressive and effective penal policy in the UK, Miliband took the opportunity to attack from the right – something he said he would not do.

Speaking at the Labour party conference in October, Miliband declared: "When Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high reoffending rates, I'm not going to say he's soft on crime." It looks like things have changed.

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.