Red Ed? Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

100 business chiefs back the Conservatives - it's more important than you think

The latest attack on Labour by business may be dismissed as "man bites dog", but it could do damage to the party, albeit indirectly.

103 business leaders have endorsed the Conservatives in a letter to the Telegraph. Does it matter? 

Like Harry Potter's Mirror of Erised, you can see what you want in it. Labour optimists will point out that many of the signatories are Conservative peers and donors. It's likely that the tax affairs of some of the other signatories will now come into the spotlight, which some party insiders believe will harm the Tories.

Labour strategists, who have long-anticipated this attack, also hope that the focus on their offer to business earlier this week - lower business rates for small businesses, no destabilising In-Out referendum on Europe for the big corporates - will sufficiently muddy the waters that the row doesn't do any damage to the party's standing in the polls.

But pessimists within the party will point to the presence of Duncan Bannatyne, who warned against a Cameron government in 2010, or Sir Charles Dunstone, who endorsed Labour in 2005. They fear that the support of business leaders provides a kitemark of credibility that the party cannot afford to do without.

A lot hinges on how Labour react to the letter. A week-long row with a few - many low-profile - business leaders is unlikely to do Labour much direct damage.  But a week spent on the rather abstract question of whether Ed Miliband is a danger to business is a week spent away from the party's issues. As one MP commented to me during the party's last row with business: "I doubt any of my constituents heard about it. But it certainly meant they didn't hear about the paternity stuff."

Just as the party's announcement on extending paternity leave was overshadowed by Miliband's clash with Boots chief Stefano Pessina, it could be that this row blots out any headlines for Labour's strengthened pledge to curb zero-hours contracts. That's far more worrying than any number of letters to the Telegraph.

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.

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.