The Tories have decided that the Lib Dem playbook is the one with the right answers

Restoring the minimum wage to its pre-crash level is the perfect encapsulation of a "stronger economy, fairer society" policy.

Apparently there is wailing and gnashing of teeth going on amongst my Westminster Lib Dem betters over the Damascene conversion of the Chancellor not only to the principle of the minimum wage, but to the need for a large rise in its level. It seems the general view is that George has nicked a Lib Dem policy, announced his opinion without telling anyone in general (or Vince Cable, whose purview this falls under, in particular), and that he hasn’t been playing fair. "It wasn’t even on the Downing St. grid" goes the cry. Like we‘ve never done that…

It seems to me that they are missing a trick. Let’s stop moaning. Let’s celebrate the fact that, apparently, the Chancellor has decided that he agrees with Nick (or at the very least, Vince). Having spent two years banging the "stronger economy, fairer society" drum, the Chancellor has now presented us with a brilliant opportunity to prove our case. Restoring the minimum wage to its pre-crash level is the perfect encapsulation of a "stronger economy, fairer society" policy. As is raising the tax threshold, another policy that the Tories said couldn’t happen because we can’t afford it, but now seem keen to try and take the credit for.

When Nick claimed that there would be no economic recovery without the Lib Dems what he really meant was that the support of the Lib Dems had allowed a UK government to get more done than any of the alternative results from the 2010 election. But now the Tories seem set on also telling the world that they agree with a stream of Lib Dem policies there’s some economic policy meat in that lobby fodder sandwich. The party of economic competence has decided that the Lib Dem playbook is the one with the right answers. Much more of this, and the Tories will be claiming that the Mansion Tax is not only a thoroughly good idea, but that they’ve backed it from the word go.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Vince Cable speaks at the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

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.