Cameron defends "intense" conversation with Rebekah Brooks

Prime Minister says: "My wife’s cousin had a party and I went, it’s not a big deal."

More than a few eyebrows were raised after it was reported that David Cameron held an "intense" conversation with Rebekah Brooks at a party in Chipping Norton shortly before Christmas. But challenged on the subject on Radio 5 Live this morning, Cameron made light of the meeting: "My wife’s cousin had a party and I went, it’s not a big deal. What really matters is the country and the decisions that are taken."

He added: "I am very focused on the job I do, it is a hugely fulfilling job and an enormous opportunity and a great honour to have this job.

"But it is a difficult time for Britain and I try and do this job in a way that I am levelling with people about the difficulties we face and not pretending it is easy when it isn’t.

"We do face difficult years, people have seen that when their wage packets haven't been going up, the challenges in terms of cost of living.

"I think there are important problems and challenges for this country to get on and get over, I think this government is helping them to do that."

After news of the encounter emerged, Ed Miliband declared at Prime Minister's Questions: "We know who this Prime Minister stands up for, because where was he last weekend? Back to his old ways, partying with Rebekah Brooks, no doubt both looking forward to the Boxing Day hunt".

Brooks was recently revealed to have secured an £11m pay-off when she resigned as chief executive of News International, including the use of office space in Marylebone and the services of company employees for two years. She is due to stand trial on 9 September over charges of phone-hacking and perverting the course of justice.

David Cameron with former Sun editor and News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.