Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Who’ll be left standing when the Tories’ secret weapon goes bang? (Daily Telegraph)

Labour needs to up its game on immigration and welfare to see off Lynton Crosby’s threat, says Mary Riddell.

2. Real Conservatives cut spending before taxes (Times)

Bold Budget measures being urged on the Chancellor will lose money in the short term, writes Daniel Finkelstein. Ask Margaret Thatcher.

3. Why the euro crisis is not yet over (Financial Times)

If all members of the eurozone would rejoin happily today, they would be extreme masochists, says Martin Wolf.

4. How George Osborne is now being muzzled by his own watchdog (Daily Mail)

The OBR provides the lesson that top economists are no wiser in making predictions than the man next to you in the saloon bar, says Andrew Alexander. 

5. Forget fairness. This mansion tax is ideological cowardice (Guardian)

A fair extension of the council tax would be easy, lucrative, progressive – and anathema to people like Balls and Cable, says Simon Jenkins.

6. Europe needs Cameron’s tough love (Financial Times)

Determination to reform the bloc is in the interests of the whole continent, writes Andrew Mitchell.

7. The price we will pay for dithering on energy (Daily Telegraph)

For a decade and more, Britain has failed to treat energy provision as a priority - and we are further from fixing the problem than ever, says a Telegraph editorial. 

8. Hilary Mantel: bring up the royal bodies (Guardian)

The lecture was not an attack on the Duchess of Cambridge but a thoughtful and sympathetic reflection on royal woman down the ages, says a Guardian editorial.

As the world is getting more prosperous, the western share of wealth is declining, writes Ian Birell. It's a new world order and we must get used to it.

10. Think there's no alternative? Latin America has a few (Guardian)

Not only have leaders from Ecuador to Venezuela delivered huge social gains – they keep winning elections too, writes Seumas Milne.

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.