Dan Hodges and NewStatesman.com

Yesterday another website carried what purported to be details of Dan Hodges's departure as a New Statesman blogger. Much of what was reported was untrue and a misrepresentation of private conversations.

For the record:

  • Dan Hodges resigned as one of our freelance bloggers, he was not sacked. Moreover, we asked him to stay and to continue blogging
  • He wasn't being "rested" from the magazine for the simple reason that he is not a regular contributor to it. Like all other would-be contributors to the magazine he was invited to pitch ideas directly to the editor.
  • No article or column intended for the magazine was "spiked" because no piece was commissioned for the magazine.
  • We did choose not to run a piece he filed for the website during the week of the Labour party conference. Dan had already contributed four blog posts that week (as agreed, and double his usual output). A fifth post that went over much of the same ground as the previous posts therefore was deemed redundant. As with all other magazines and newspapers we have occasion to "spike" pieces. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

Dan Hodges was brought on to NS.com at the beginning of 2011 because he was -- and remains -- a fine blogger. He was also well connected to various parts of the Labour party and gave us another take on Labour party politics.

His blog description reads "The grit in the oyster of the new politics" so we knew what we were getting from the outset. He caused trouble, he broke stories and wasn't afraid to be highly critical of the Labour leadership. All good. Alongside our Liberal Democrat and Conservative bloggers, as well as our in-house team, he formed part of a lively - and plural - range of voices.

When Dan expressed his desire to "call it a day" during a private conversation in Manchester a week ago, I asked him to reconsider. Sadly, he didn't change his mind and NewStatesman.com has lost a valued contributor.

We wish him well.

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why we can't let Liam Fox negotiate post-Brexit trade deals behind closed doors

MPs have little control over agreements struck with the US and others. 

Today Liam Fox will start discussing a trade deal with the United States. We don’t know who will attend or what’s on the agenda, and neither do our elected representatives in parliament. Nor do MPs have the power to guide the talks, to set red lines, to amend or to stop an eventual deal.

International Trade Secretary Fox is acting with regal powers. And that should scare us all. 

What we do know is that this deal, if completed, will affect pretty much everyone in the country. Like most modern trade deals it won’t be primarily about tariffs. Far from it, it will be about our environmental and consumer protections, about how we’re allowed to spend taxpayers' money, about how we run our public services and the power we give to big business. 

We also know that those feeding into these negotiations are overwhelmingly big businesses.  

New analysis of ministerial meetings published today by the Corporate Europe Observatory and Global Justice Now, shows that 90 per cent of meetings held by trade ministers in the last six months are with businesses. Most of these are massive companies including Starbucks, Walmart, Amazon, BP and HSBC.

So businesses have nine times the access of everyone else. In fact, it’s worse than it appears, because “everyone else” includes pro-big business consultants from the Legatum Institute and the Adam Smith Institute, together with a handful of campaign groups, trade unions and public institutions.

We can guess from Donald Trump’s approach to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations, which start in a couple of weeks, what the US agenda will look like. Corporate courts – which give big businesses power to sue states for decisions they don’t like – are fine, but state-to-state resolution isn’t. That’s because the US sometimes loses in the latter, but not in the former. 

Trump is also pushing Canada and Mexico for one-sided access for US companies to bid for government spending contracts (Buy America is allowed, but not Buy Canada or Buy Mexico it seems). He also wants better access for US financial corporations and further liberalisation of energy markets.

This is “America First” in practice. With Britain, it’s highly likely that access to the NHS and the UK’s higher food standards will be on the agenda. After all, Fox is likely to agree with Trump on those issues.  

Indeed, this is big politics for Fox. He knows that outside the EU, Britain must choose whom to align itself with – the US or Europe. Fox’s preference is clearly the former, because that would push us down the path of lighter regulation, lower standards, and “the market knows best”. That’s why failure to secure an EU trade deal while agreeing a US deal has enormous implications for our society.  

Finally, we know that this is only the first of ten trade working groups with 15 countries which will meet in coming weeks and months. Others involve Saudi Arabia and Turkey, hardly human rights bastions, where we have a big arms market. It also includes countries such as India, where Britain is desperate to increase intellectual property rules to help big pharmaceutical corporations clamp down on generic medicine provision. 

The long and the short of it is that none of this should be discussed behind closed doors. This is not a game of poker involving tariff levels. Huge issues of public policy are at stake. Yet even the most basic information about these meetings is apparently so sensitive that it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws. And don’t accept the assurance of Fox, who has form in this area. He promised a parliamentary debate on the Canada-EU trade deal last year. The debate never came. Fox simply signed the deal off on behalf of this country with no scrutiny or discussion. MPs should refuse to accept his assurances a second time. 

Anyone who suspects this is a Remoaner making up scare stories about Brexit should remember the process is the exact same one that will be used to agree our trade deal with the EU when we leave. That means our MEPs will have more power over that deal than our MPs. As will the MEPs of all other EU member states, and their national parliamentarians. In fact, the parliamentarians of the Belgian region of Wallonia will have more power than British MPs. Taking back control it ain’t.

But don’t despair. We have 18 months in which the government is not allowed to sign off any trade deals. We have a Trade Bill which will be introduced to parliament in the autumn. And we have a hung parliament. And a cross-party motion has already been tabled calling for scrutiny of trade deals like this. There is every chance we can overturn this archaic method of negotiating trade deals. But the clock is ticking. 

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now