Show Hide image The Staggers 19 July 2017 PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn sends the Tories off for a difficult summer As Theresa May fails yet again to deflect Labour’s attacks on inequality, there will be a lot of soul-searching over recess. Sign up to the Staggers Morning Call email * Print HTML Theresa May says she doesn’t regret calling the snap election that lost her majority. But there are two regrets she probably does have. The first would be her speech about helping the “just about managing” on the steps of No 10 when she took office. The second would be forgetting about austerity as a Tory priority. Both of these decisions have come back to bite her – and can be used ruthlessly by Labour. Nowhere was this clearer than the last PMQs before Parliament breaks up for recess. For what seemed like the tenth week in a row, Jeremy Corbyn was able to hit the Prime Minister where it hurts on the public sector pay freeze, arguing that people are being squeezed by low wages and rising inflation. He said she needs a “check on reality”, and brought up the Chancellor Philip Hammond’s alleged comment about public sector workers being “overpaid” – an unconfirmed quote, and the result of a leak from cabinet members arguing to lift the cap. Corbyn’s attack on this worked two ways: exposing the cabinet’s divides on the subject, and also – more importantly – cementing the public’s preconceptions about the Conservative Party. The Tories are always trying to shed their image as the party of the rich, out-of-touch with “ordinary” people. But being called out on in-work poverty and low-pay only perpetuates this image – and May’s promise to help struggling working-class families makes it even worse. It’s no longer just a Tory stereotype; it’s a betrayal. This pay freeze is symbolic of the debate about austerity that resurfaced after Corbyn’s election performance. His success was taken by many Tories as a vote against austerity. That’s why there are both cabinet members and backbenchers who think it’s time for a different approach. Corbyn has emboldened them, but May has done more to do so. By dropping George Osborne’s deficit targets, and borrowing to invest in infrastructure, she allowed austerity to drop off the agenda. This is making it all the more difficult for her and her Chancellor to now defend. So the Conservatives won’t only be thinking about their next leader over the summer. They’ll be searching for the soul of their party too. › The extra money for schools is too little, far too late – they are already on their knees Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman. More Related articles Jeremy Corbyn: "wholesale" EU immigration has destroyed conditions for British workers There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts You may call me a monster – but I'm glad that girl's lemonade stall got shut down Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine
Show Hide image Observations 22 July 2017 The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic. Sign up to the Staggers Morning Call email * Print HTML Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there. Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017. US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy. British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it. This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”. A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic. You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”. It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media. By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country. Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013) This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder More Related articles Essayism is ultimately about how literature can make a difference The Sad Part Was: this story collection puts the real Bangkok on display Sarah Hall's dark short stories are fragments of lives wrenched out of alignment Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine
