PMQs review: Cameron profits from Labour's pensions move

The PM's framing of the party as soft on welfare but tough on pensioners is dangerous for Miliband and Balls.

It was the unending struggle between David Cameron and Ed Balls that defined today's PMQs. After the shadow chancellor revealed at the weekend that pensions would be included in Labour's welfare cap, Tory MPs set the PM up to deliver attack after attack on Labour for targeting those who've "worked hard all their lives". As Balls furiously pointed out, the party has pledged to keep the "triple lock" on pensions, but Cameron seized on Douglas Alexander's statement that this was their policy "at present" (the standard formulation used by shadow ministers) to declare that Labour would "cut the pension". That Cameron is now able to claim as much, however implausibly, is dangerous for Balls and Miliband. As the PM knows well, It is the over-65s who are the most likely age group to vote (76 per cent did in 2010, compared to 65 per cent of the total population). Cameron is now framing Labour as the party that wants to "protect welfare [it has refused to support the £26,000 benefit cap in its current form], punish hardworkers and punish pensioners." 

Cameron launched another rhetorical assault on Balls later in the session when he declared that the shadow chancellor's statement that the last Labour government did not spend too much "will be hung around his neck forever", describing it as "the most important quote in the last 10 years of politics." For the Tories, Balls's and Miliband's refusal to "apologise" for overspending gives them the opening they need to claim that Labour has "learned nothing" from the crash. 

The exchanges between Cameron and Miliband - on Syria and living standards - were less memorable but highlighted the significant division that has opened up between the two parties on arming the Syrian rebels. Miliband asked the PM: "given that Russia is prepared to send more arms to the Syrian government, does the Prime Minister think it is at all realistic for that 'tipping strategy' to work?" Cameron replied by insisting that he had "not made a decision to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons" but floundered when asked by Miliband what safeguards had been put in place in the event that he did. With many on the Tory benches as sceptical of Labour of the merits of arming the rebels (81 Conservative MPs signed a motion demanding a vote on the matter), this is likely to become a growing headache for the PM. 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. 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.