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

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.