Ed Miliband: "a thriving political culture and a thriving New Statesman go together"

Labour leader at the Statesman's centenary party.

Labour leader Ed Miliband paid tribute to the New Statesman’s role in creating a "thriving political culture" at a Westminster party to celebrate the magazine’s 100th anniversary last night.

And Miliband joked that the New Statesman made an "excellent choice in the Labour leadership contest [in 2010], one of three publications do so…one was a blog and the other was the Sunday People".

Noting that editor since 2008 Jason Cowley has increased print circulation in recent years, Miliband said that the title’s website now attracts around one million monthly readers, he said the New Statesman would probably have died after 85 years if it wasn’t for Geoffrey Robinson MP. He was proprietor until 2008 when the title was bought by Mike Danson’s Progressive Media (which also owns Press Gazette).

Describing the New Statesman as a magazine which has "an extraordinary history" he noted that it has a "complicated relationship with the Labour Party" and made somewhat shamefaced reference to his comment during Prime Ministers’s questions earlier this year when he said that David Cameron was "scraping the barrel" by quoting the New Statesman.

He said: "Sometimes Labour leaders make unflattering remarks about the New Statesman" and noted that Tony Blair included a veiled jibe against the magazine in his autobiography.

Saying that the New Statesman was important to the Labour Party, Miliband said: "Politics is not just about politicians, it’s about the ideas that shape the political culture of our country."

He noted that "both CND and Charter 88 come out of the New Statesman" and added that "a thriving political culture and a thriving New Statesman go together".

He said: "The unsung heroes of this magazine are the people who work for it. You don’t come and work for the New Statesman for the money, you do it because you care about our country and you care about our world…and it’s to them that I pay tribute to tonight."

This piece first appeared on Press Gazette.

Ed Miliband at the New Statesman's centenary party. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

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.