Debate of the nation. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Are we any closer to a deal on the televised leaders' debates?

The broadcasters' new offer of a seven-way panel means the Tories are willing to negotiate.

As if the TV debates themselves (if they happen) won't be long and rambling enough, the journey to agreeing the line-up has become the most tedious saga of the general election campaign.

But it finally looks like our leaders might be coming close to an agreement. Last week, ITV and the BBC revealed that they had proposed a new line-up for the debates, with seven-way panels including the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru. This plan means the Conservatives, so keen for the Greens' inclusion as a potential drain on Labour support, are close to agreeing David Cameron's participation in the debates.

The Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, has called the new plan "a lot more sensible" than the initial line-ups, which would have pitted the PM against Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. "I think we are edging here towards something that makes more sense," he added, on the BBC's Sunday Politics.

The leader of the Greens, Natalie Bennett, has confirmed that she would represent her party in the debates, rather than the only Green MP and former leader, Caroline Lucas. She has been fighting for her party's representation in the debates for some time, and welcomes the broadcasters' new deal.

However, problems remain. The DUP's representative in Westminster, Nigel Dodds MP, calls it a "farcical situation" that his party has not been asked to participate in the multiple-party panels. His party has eight MPs. Also, the Lib Dems believe they should be represented in all four debates; the Channel 4 and Sky News offers each remain a simple Cameron/Miliband head-to-head.

With hints from Shapps that the Tories are inching towards an agreement, it looks like the Prime Minister is very likely to take part, which would mean that – in whatever configuration – the debates are well on the way to our screens.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at 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.