Maria Hutchings under fire again as doctors protest over state school comments

Eight doctors criticise the Conservative Eastleigh by-election candidate after she claimed it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to state school.

With parliament in recess, even more attention will be concentrated on the Eastleigh by-election in the last full week of campaigning. All Conservative MPs have been instructed to make at least three visits to the constituency before polling day on 28 February and it's not hard to detect increasing nervousness in the Tory camp about the party's chances of taking the seat off the Lib Dems. Interviewed on The Sunday Politics yesterday, Conservative chairman Grant Shapps, who defended Tory candidate Maria Hutching's comments on state education, did not sound like a man confident of winning. The Lib Dems' local advantage - the party holds all 36 council seats in the constituency - is beginning to tell, with the party estimated to have three times as many helpers as the Tories. 

The row over Hutchings, who claimed that it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to a state school, is rumbling on this morning after eight doctors signed an open letter criticising her comments. The medics, all of whom were state educated, wrote: 

 

As GPs and surgeons who all started their education at state-funded schools, we are proof that Maria Hutchings' assertions are not true. The education system in this country provided us with the knowledge and skills we needed to follow our dream career.

It's such a shame that Conservatives like Maria Hutchings want to do our education system down instead of sending the message that whatever your background, you can achieve what you set out to do in life.

The imbroglio is a good example of why, as I wrote the day after Hutchings was selected as the Conservative candidate, a significant number of Tories thought she was the wrong choice for the seat. Hutchings, who fought and lost Eastleigh in 2010 (Chris Huhne increased his majority from 568 to 3,864), was viewed as exactly the kind of political novice that the party should avoid. Nothing that has happened since suggests this judgemenet was wrong. 

David Cameron and Conservative candidate Maria Hutchings leaflet residential homes in Eastleigh, before the imminent by-election. 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.