Home » Posts tagged 'one nation' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: one nation
David Cameron and the Conservatives should be given credit for a challenging, if inaccurate, speech at their Party Conference
I think the main danger in misinterpreting David Cameron’s speech, written by Clare Foges and colleagues of the Conservative Party (including presumably David Cameron), is to do so without viewing it from the perspective of a potential Tory voter.
Individuals who are ardent Conservative voters, one assumes, are not distracted by factual inaccuracies in the narrative (such as how many people on housing benefit are unemployed, or how much borrowing this current government is doing). Certain things might have stuck in the minds of potential voters, such as the idea of an unemployed person in a bedsit queue-jumping in the housing ballot ahead of a person who’d dedicated his or her life for decades. To such people, the prevalence of benefit fraud is immaterial. Cameron tried to produce a narrative of the rich being punished for being successful, in his characteristically patronising explanation of how income tax works for Miliband’s benefit. A caller on Iain Dale’s show last night on lbc considered that he might vote for the Conservative Party, having voted for decades for Labour. He felt that his ambitions as a worker had not been recognised by the Labour Party, and was sick of it. Rather than blaming Cameron and his team for tapping into this ‘aspiration’, Labour runs a genuine risk of pursuing evidence-based politics while simultaneously failing to capture the sentiment and feelings of workers of this country.
How this situation has come about is interesting, but it is patently obvious that it has not come about overnight. Cameron indeed would be right in thinking that such a voter is not overly concerned about what Prof Michael Sandel or Prof Jim Hacker have to say about public good or predistribution particularly; the mental masturbation over intellectual sociological ideas might lead to an even greater disconnect between Labour and its missing voters. It is clearly of concern that there are millions of voters who cannot remember why they did not vote in the 2010 general election, but it is fair to say, probably, that not all of them produced a protest vote on account of the expenses scandal. While talk of whether Andrew Mitchell will survive is of immense interest to the Westminster village, it is curiously not the allegation that he may have said “fucking” or “pleb” that is the problem with the focus groups, but the fact that the Conservative Party do not consider themselves at one with the general public.
This is why Cameron’s pitch was effective, as it was ‘levelling’ with the public in a way that they largely comprehend. Labour has its own arguments why it increased public spending, but it seems that there is no appetite for such a technical debate; however much Labour wishes to debate it, the Labour Party are generally not trusted with the public finances. While ‘One Nation’ talk might be appealing, even after the forty-sixth repeat, if Labour cannot be trusted to be in control of the public purse, the most they can hope for is a Lib-Lab pact. The dynamics of a potential future Lib-Lab pact are interesting, in that the vast majority of Labour voters would not wish to enter into a pact with Nick Clegg still at the helm of the Liberal Democrat party. It becomes 50/50 if it’s any leader but Nick Clegg, and still most Labour voters stubbornly feel that Labour politicians are better at running the economy than the Liberal Democrats. It can be tempting for Labour members to think that the NHS is a ‘make or break’ issue, but this policy has been evolving for some time, especially under New Labour, with the emergence of NHS Foundation Trusts and clinical commissioning. Labour voters are not likely to get angry over the pay packets of private directors of healthcare companies at the ballot box, but are more likely to resent the Health and Social Care Act if quality is seen to suffer. While the NHS remains branded as an unitary NHS, this is unlikely to be the case, and the Conservatives can justifiably continue, perhaps, with their strategy of either not mentioning it, or describing it as a ‘modernisation strategy’.
The legal aid cuts might be a more productive way for Labour to reach out to the strivers. For example, due to the managed decline of law centres on the high street, access-to-justice for housing, immigration, asylum, welfare benefits, and employment advice, inter alia, is compromised. This is hardly in the best interests of strivers? Strivers are unlikely to be impressed by trading off their rights not to be unfairly dismissed for some shares in a company which cannot produce a dividend unless it has distributable profits. It might be that strivers do not particularly care whether the Human Rights Act is abolished or not, although its abolition might help to return a Conservative government. Individuals may be inclined to think that so long as he or she is not affected by torture, privacy, or freedom of expression issues, they are unlikely to be touched by the Human Rights Act, especially if legal aid for such matters is abolished. Cameron has also perhaps succeeded in painting the Conservative Party as firmly footed in the “real world”. There are two major issues for why Ed Miliband has trouble on this: the spending of Labour “even during the good times”, and the thirst by Miliband for the application of sociological theories which have yet to be tested in practice. The empirical evidence for ‘Nudge’ of course has never been compelling, but there is a sense that the standards that Conservatives apply for themselves are not the ones they apply to Labour.
So it comes to something when David Cameron calls trade union leaders “snobs”, but no amount of hatred for inverted snobbery will deliver Miliband a landslide for the 2015 general election. Practical problems emerge if Ed Balls signs up for an austerity agenda indistinguishable from the Conservatives, not least in the sense that workers will wonder why on earth they are still supporting Labour. Miliband does not want to be seen in the lap of ‘vested interests’ codeword for ‘trade unions’, but likewise he has not embraced a redistributive tax system targetting the very highest earners yet. Trade union members contribute up to 40% of the funding of the Labour Party, but, like the debate on public purse handling, Miliband is unlikely to sway the minds of voters on this. It is not improved aspiration from the middle class and centre that will win Miliband the 2015 general election, but it will be working class leaving Labour in droves in finding their aspirations unaddressed. One term oppositions are extremely rare, and Labour finds itself in a difficult position in perhaps having to rely on the Liberal Democrats to form a government having spent the last five years in slagging them off. Cameron’s speech yesterday was full of statements all good lefties would have found contemptible, but it was clever in that it was sufficiently practical (for example, not mentioning the ‘bash a burglar’ policy) that it did offer a course for government. As others have pointed out, this is not a speech that Cameron can ever give in future, if he fails to deliver. The starting gun for the 2015 general election has most definitely been fired, and the first ‘hurdle’ takes the form of the OBR assessment in a few weeks time about the UK deficit. Cameron has given himself in a sense a suspended sentence, but there are strict conditions for his future behaviour.
Despite the inaccuracies, Cameron's pitch was sufficiently effective to be of concern
I think the main danger in misinterpreting David Cameron’s speech, written by Clare Foges and colleagues of the Conservative Party (including presumably David Cameron), is to do so without viewing it from the perspective of a potential Tory voter.
Individuals who are ardent Conservative voters, one assumes, are not distracted by factual inaccuracies in the narrative (such as how many people on housing benefit are unemployed, or how much borrowing this current government is doing). Certain things might have stuck in the minds of potential voters, such as the idea of an unemployed person in a bedsit queue-jumping in the housing ballot ahead of a person who’d dedicated his or her life for decades. To such people, the prevalence of benefit fraud is immaterial. Cameron tried to produce a narrative of the rich being punished for being successful, in his characteristically patronising explanation of how income tax works for Miliband’s benefit. A caller on Iain Dale’s show last night on lbc considered that he might vote for the Conservative Party, having voted for decades for Labour. He felt that his ambitions as a worker had not been recognised by the Labour Party, and was sick of it. Rather than blaming Cameron and his team for tapping into this ‘aspiration’, Labour runs a genuine risk of pursuing evidence-based politics while simultaneously failing to capture the sentiment and feelings of workers of this country.
How this situation has come about is interesting, but it is patently obvious that it has not come about overnight. Cameron indeed would be right in thinking that such a voter is not overly concerned about what Prof Michael Sandel or Prof Jim Hacker have to say about public good or predistribution particularly; the mental masturbation over intellectual sociological ideas might lead to an even greater disconnect between Labour and its missing voters. It is clearly of concern that there are millions of voters who cannot remember why they did not vote in the 2010 general election, but it is fair to say, probably, that not all of them produced a protest vote on account of the expenses scandal. While talk of whether Andrew Mitchell will survive is of immense interest to the Westminster village, it is curiously not the allegation that he may have said “fucking” or “pleb” that is the problem with the focus groups, but the fact that the Conservative Party do not consider themselves at one with the general public.
This is why Cameron’s pitch was effective, as it was ‘levelling’ with the public in a way that they largely comprehend. Labour has its own arguments why it increased public spending, but it seems that there is no appetite for such a technical debate; however much Labour wishes to debate it, the Labour Party are generally not trusted with the public finances. While ‘One Nation’ talk might be appealing, even after the forty-sixth repeat, if Labour cannot be trusted to be in control of the public purse, the most they can hope for is a Lib-Lab pact. The dynamics of a potential future Lib-Lab pact are interesting, in that the vast majority of Labour voters would not wish to enter into a pact with Nick Clegg still at the helm of the Liberal Democrat party. It becomes 50/50 if it’s any leader but Nick Clegg, and still most Labour voters stubbornly feel that Labour politicians are better at running the economy than the Liberal Democrats. It can be tempting for Labour members to think that the NHS is a ‘make or break’ issue, but this policy has been evolving for some time, especially under New Labour, with the emergence of NHS Foundation Trusts and clinical commissioning. Labour voters are not likely to get angry over the pay packets of private directors of healthcare companies at the ballot box, but are more likely to resent the Health and Social Care Act if quality is seen to suffer. While the NHS remains branded as an unitary NHS, this is unlikely to be the case, and the Conservatives can justifiably continue, perhaps, with their strategy of either not mentioning it, or describing it as a ‘modernisation strategy’.
The legal aid cuts might be a more productive way for Labour to reach out to the strivers. For example, due to the managed decline of law centres on the high street, access-to-justice for housing, immigration, asylum, welfare benefits, and employment advice, inter alia, is compromised. This is hardly in the best interests of strivers? Strivers are unlikely to be impressed by trading off their rights not to be unfairly dismissed for some shares in a company which cannot produce a dividend unless it has distributable profits. It might be that strivers do not particularly care whether the Human Rights Act is abolished or not, although its abolition might help to return a Conservative government. Individuals may be inclined to think that so long as he or she is not affected by torture, privacy, or freedom of expression issues, they are unlikely to be touched by the Human Rights Act, especially if legal aid for such matters is abolished. Cameron has also perhaps succeeded in painting the Conservative Party as firmly footed in the “real world”. There are two major issues for why Ed Miliband has trouble on this: the spending of Labour “even during the good times”, and the thirst by Miliband for the application of sociological theories which have yet to be tested in practice. The empirical evidence for ‘Nudge’ of course has never been compelling, but there is a sense that the standards that Conservatives apply for themselves are not the ones they apply to Labour.
So it comes to something when David Cameron calls trade union leaders “snobs”, but no amount of hatred for inverted snobbery will deliver Miliband a landslide for the 2015 general election. Practical problems emerge if Ed Balls signs up for an austerity agenda indistinguishable from the Conservatives, not least in the sense that workers will wonder why on earth they are still supporting Labour. Miliband does not want to be seen in the lap of ‘vested interests’ codeword for ‘trade unions’, but likewise he has not embraced a redistributive tax system targetting the very highest earners yet. Trade union members contribute up to 40% of the funding of the Labour Party, but, like the debate on public purse handling, Miliband is unlikely to sway the minds of voters on this. It is not improved aspiration from the middle class and centre that will win Miliband the 2015 general election, but it will be working class leaving Labour in droves in finding their aspirations unaddressed. One term oppositions are extremely rare, and Labour finds itself in a difficult position in perhaps having to rely on the Liberal Democrats to form a government having spent the last five years in slagging them off. Cameron’s speech yesterday was full of statements all good lefties would have found contemptible, but it was clever in that it was sufficiently practical (for example, not mentioning the ‘bash a burglar’ policy) that it did offer a course for government. As others have pointed out, this is not a speech that Cameron can ever give in future, if he fails to deliver. The starting gun for the 2015 general election has most definitely been fired, and the first ‘hurdle’ takes the form of the OBR assessment in a few weeks time about the UK deficit. Cameron has given himself in a sense a suspended sentence, but there are strict conditions for his future behaviour.
That "One Nation" speech by Ed Miliband MP – an opinion from an ordinary Labour member
Bear in mind when reading this I am a nobody – I am not a MP, councillor, journo, wonk, but I am a member! You’d be forgiven for thinking that this speech was only about “one nation”, but Ed first utters the first of his 46 “one nations” 20 minutes in. This was, by far, the best Labour leader’s speech to, and it was only my third conference in total. Ed Miliband spoke passionately, articulately, and convincingly, without notes, for over an hour, and would have been genuinely inspiring for many. If, on the other hand, you were a Scottish voter looking for Scottish independence, you might have been desperately hoping that Ed Miliband would announce a policy for Scottish independence. It is probably at least accurate to form the judgment that Ed Miliband has converted himself from the “Not never” to the “Yeah but” candidate, as proposed by Matthew Taylor today (the CEO of the RSA). Ed Miliband is clearly much better without an autocue, and his delivery was witty, engaging, vibrant and interesting. The jokes were good too. People who saw the Conference were definitely buzzing afterwards, and I was sat around the corner with some of the ‘Labour Left’ contingent, awaiting a fringe session on ethics in media and in business.
It has become known as the ‘One Nation’ speech, because of the use of the phrase ‘one nation’ forty six times. The speech managed to pull off Ed’s pride in the NHS hospital in which he was born, and the Haverstock Hill Comprehensive School in which he was educated prior to Oxford. And yet the speech did not have the jingoism that Disraeli was in fact known for, and Frank Dobson indeed noted that it was any appropriate that the Left should appropriate back a national sense of pride and identity. A clear message, which Ed convincingly explained, that politics was not simply a well-paid job for Ed, but a genuine life motivation, but a “faith” “to leave the world better compared to how we found it”, and “not to shrug our shoulders against injustice”, and “overcome any odds in coming together”. These are not particularly socialist or social democratic ideals, although the ‘coming together’ may be symptomatic of the solidarity inherent in solidarity, or the action against injustice as a social democratic ideal. Whatever the exact etymology of Ed’s beliefs, Miliband is more concerned about the millions of members of the public who have become disconnected with politics, and it happens that the political process is a central third strand of the extensive policy review currently in progress through 37 focus groups being led by Jon Cruddas MP.
Ed discusses individuals ‘brimming with hope’, such as individuals who have sent off hundreds of CVs to potential employers. It is interesting especially how Ed’s “aspiration” is not of the same tone as the Thatcherite individualistic definition, but rather one combined with a notion of insecurity not exclusive to the middle-class. The feeling that people are “at the mercy of forces beyond their control” is certainly one will chime with many of potential voters. His focus on prices in utility bills (and the profits of privatised utilities) is an interesting one, as these represent genuine concerns of Daily Express readers on a regular basis apparently. Interestingly, Ed Miliband stops short of proposing renationalising of the utilities, or introducing a windfall tax for the utilities, which would have been a radical solution (and which indeed could have been shoehorned, just, within the framework of ‘pre-distribution’). This brings Miliband to the notion that people at the very top are still doing well in Tory Britain, and hence his faith of “One Nation”. The line about Cameron writing himself a cheque as a tax-cut is rather misleading, especially given the blurring of the factual difference in tax terms between income and wealth.
In fairness, a sense of shared destiny has been evoked previously by Prof Michael Sandel in his philosophy of ‘equality of opportunity’ for the common good, and Miliband himself has often spoke much about how the economy is a ‘one nation’ economy, not private vs public, north vs south, millionaires vs non-millionaires, or rich vs poor. ‘We need banks that serves the country, not a country which serves the banks” is indeed a convincing slogan, but Miliband stops short of arguing for intensive regulation of the banking industry in the speech (although he threatens it by offering first an opportunity for self-regulation). A problem, which came up as a recurrent theme in this year’s fringe meetings of the Fabians and Labour Left, is that an optional ‘responsible capitalism’ might not be implementable, but that the State might have to legislate for transparent details to be published about sustainability and ethical practices of the banks, if banks decided not to publish such data voluntarily to secure competitive advantage through a strategy of ‘differentiation’. This is a recurrent theme in Miliband’s speeches, and critics have often remarked how it seems rather disingenious that Miliband criticises a lack of ‘one nation’ while waging some sort of class war. Ed Miliband does not feel that the Conservatives can be a ‘one-nation party’, but is less than clear about his reasons for doing so. The economic narrative initially is clear; that the raison d’être, to cut borrowing, has failed, the economy is not growing, fewer people are in work, and borrowing is going up. One of Labour’s criticisms regarding economic competence is of course that Labour recklessly borrows, but Miliband argues that borrowing is going up anyway. However, as usual, the details from Labour as to what it exactly it will commit to in terms of austerity cuts – and critically where – is ambiguous, and it is particularly confusing that Ed Miliband, while appearing to support austerity in the Conference Hall, is simultaneously willing to go on an anti-austerity march soon.
There are noteable absences in themes, such as the green economy or Europe, and even some burning issues are not tackled at all, such as disability. Ed Miliband concludes that ‘one nation’ is a way of making difficult decisions, including ‘compassion and support for those who cannot work, particularly the disabled citizens of our country’. Miliband has thus far avoided the confusion, in much the same way that Byrne has, that the disability living allowance is not an employment benefit, and this myth must be busted by Miliband soon. Disability campaigners therefore, fundamentally, have every right to be skeptical of the ‘one nation’ narrative, having been sidelined as ‘benefit scrounging scum’ (by some) for far too long. The incompetence narrative is convincing, particularly on the eve of the disaster of the West Country Train fiasco: “”Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope, miserable shower?”
The clever aspect about ‘One Nation’ is that it appears to be quite a politically framed left-agenda, but sugarcoated in centrist packaging. For example, “there will be tough settlements for the public sector” might send alarm bells ringing for the Unions, but introducing a 50p tax rate for millionaires might offer some balance. Notwithstanding, Maurice Glasman has been eager to propose how collective workers may be beneficiaries of the new ‘One Nation’ project. The usual criticism is that Labour never introduced a 50p tax rate until the very end, and even then it was finally implemented after the Conservatives had come into power. So, if “those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest burden”, before Miliband then criticises Murdoch explicitly, is this genuinely the talk of “one nation”? There are obvious possible contradictions within the text: for example Scottish members cheering on “Team GB” in the Olympics, whereas one of the greatest triumphs of New Labour had been cited as devolution. There are not only contradictions within the text of the speech, but of Labour with its past. There may be a sense that it is better that ‘the sinner does finally repenteth’, and indeed the move towards youth apprenticeships (and youth employment) may be a practical solution as the antithesis to New Labour wishing to send more and more people to University. It is indeed promising that Ed Miliband even proposes that contracts will only be awarded to those private sector companies which implement apprenticeships, but it is somewhat surprising that Miliband does not state explicitly ‘the minimum wage’ as part of the solution for the dodgy employment activities of some multi-national companies.
It is further uncertain whether Ed Miliband’s description of the core values of the NHS as “competition, care and collaboration” was a Freudian slip; when I later attended the Andy Burnham interview with Caroline Crampton of the New Statesman, people I spoke to in the audience queried the inclusion of the word “competition”. It is likely that Miliband did not in fact mean “competition” at all, as he then graphically explains why competition had failed in the privatised utility companies. Indeed, Conference started off with the report that Labour would not be able to reverse the Health and Social Care Act, but later statements from Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband and Jamie Reed later confirmed that the Health and Social Care Act would be repealed, if Labour came into power. Labour still appears to endorse (in some form) GP commissioning and NHS Foundation Trusts, and was indeed responsible for introducing them, but Andy Burnham’s promise to change the narrative, in ‘getting rid of the market’, is still not entirely convincing with existing structures still in place in 2015. Whilst it is true that the Conservatives went much further and faster than the Labour administration had, many feel that the ‘purchaser-provider’ split is still very much at the heart of the problems in the NHS. A truly socialist NHS might get rid of this split? A very good thing that Ed Miliband did to highlight the lack of inclusion was to state that the medical Royal Colleges had not been involved in the dialogue over the NHS reforms, which definitely supports his “one nation” narrative.
Labour has a lot of time on its side, and we do not know how much further the economy will regress between now and then. This certainly gives Jon Cruddas and his colleagues enough time to work out details about how Labour can build on the ‘one nation theme’. Miliband has indeed experienced a ‘bounce’ in the polls, and previous criticisms of Ed’s leadership have for now been muted. The speech had a clear structure and a clear theme, and was genuinely extremely well received by many Labour members; but the danger is that Labour is preaching to the converted, and overestimating its popularity. However, the distinct possibility has now emerged that David Cameron might be in fact be an ‘inglorious leader’ of a one-term government, and Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet have now suddenly found themselves “back in the race”. This can only be a good thing for democracy.
The problem is brilliantly illustrated by Gary Baker ((c) of Gary Baker therefore) in Tribune in this incredible cartoon!
'One Nation' – but it may not be 'one direction' for Labour
Bear in mind when reading this I am a nobody – I am not a MP, councillor, journo, wonk, but I am a member! You’d be forgiven for thinking that this speech was only about “one nation”, but Ed first utters the first of his 46 “one nations” 20 minutes in. This was, by far, the best Labour leader’s speech to, and it was only my third conference in total. Ed Miliband spoke passionately, articulately, and convincingly, without notes, for over an hour, and would have been genuinely inspiring for many. If, on the other hand, you were a Scottish voter looking for Scottish independence, you might have been desperately hoping that Ed Miliband would announce a policy for Scottish independence. It is probably at least accurate to form the judgment that Ed Miliband has converted himself from the “Not never” to the “Yeah but” candidate, as proposed by Matthew Taylor today (the CEO of the RSA). Ed Miliband is clearly much better without an autocue, and his delivery was witty, engaging, vibrant and interesting. The jokes were good too. People who saw the Conference were definitely buzzing afterwards, and I was sat around the corner with some of the ‘Labour Left’ contingent, awaiting a fringe session on ethics in media and in business.
It has become known as the ‘One Nation’ speech, because of the use of the phrase ‘one nation’ forty six times. The speech managed to pull off Ed’s pride in the NHS hospital in which he was born, and the Haverstock Hill Comprehensive School in which he was educated prior to Oxford. And yet the speech did not have the jingoism that Disraeli was in fact known for, and Frank Dobson indeed noted that it was any appropriate that the Left should appropriate back a national sense of pride and identity. A clear message, which Ed convincingly explained, that politics was not simply a well-paid job for Ed, but a genuine life motivation, but a “faith” “to leave the world better compared to how we found it”, and “not to shrug our shoulders against injustice”, and “overcome any odds in coming together”. These are not particularly socialist or social democratic ideals, although the ‘coming together’ may be symptomatic of the solidarity inherent in solidarity, or the action against injustice as a social democratic ideal. Whatever the exact etymology of Ed’s beliefs, Miliband is more concerned about the millions of members of the public who have become disconnected with politics, and it happens that the political process is a central third strand of the extensive policy review currently in progress through 37 focus groups being led by Jon Cruddas MP.
Ed discusses individuals ‘brimming with hope’, such as individuals who have sent off hundreds of CVs to potential employers. It is interesting especially how Ed’s “aspiration” is not of the same tone as the Thatcherite individualistic definition, but rather one combined with a notion of insecurity not exclusive to the middle-class. The feeling that people are “at the mercy of forces beyond their control” is certainly one will chime with many of potential voters. His focus on prices in utility bills (and the profits of privatised utilities) is an interesting one, as these represent genuine concerns of Daily Express readers on a regular basis apparently. Interestingly, Ed Miliband stops short of proposing renationalising of the utilities, or introducing a windfall tax for the utilities, which would have been a radical solution (and which indeed could have been shoehorned, just, within the framework of ‘pre-distribution’). This brings Miliband to the notion that people at the very top are still doing well in Tory Britain, and hence his faith of “One Nation”. The line about Cameron writing himself a cheque as a tax-cut is rather misleading, especially given the blurring of the factual difference in tax terms between income and wealth.
In fairness, a sense of shared destiny has been evoked previously by Prof Michael Sandel in his philosophy of ‘equality of opportunity’ for the common good, and Miliband himself has often spoke much about how the economy is a ‘one nation’ economy, not private vs public, north vs south, millionaires vs non-millionaires, or rich vs poor. ‘We need banks that serves the country, not a country which serves the banks” is indeed a convincing slogan, but Miliband stops short of arguing for intensive regulation of the banking industry in the speech (although he threatens it by offering first an opportunity for self-regulation). A problem, which came up as a recurrent theme in this year’s fringe meetings of the Fabians and Labour Left, is that an optional ‘responsible capitalism’ might not be implementable, but that the State might have to legislate for transparent details to be published about sustainability and ethical practices of the banks, if banks decided not to publish such data voluntarily to secure competitive advantage through a strategy of ‘differentiation’. This is a recurrent theme in Miliband’s speeches, and critics have often remarked how it seems rather disingenious that Miliband criticises a lack of ‘one nation’ while waging some sort of class war. Ed Miliband does not feel that the Conservatives can be a ‘one-nation party’, but is less than clear about his reasons for doing so. The economic narrative initially is clear; that the raison d’être, to cut borrowing, has failed, the economy is not growing, fewer people are in work, and borrowing is going up. One of Labour’s criticisms regarding economic competence is of course that Labour recklessly borrows, but Miliband argues that borrowing is going up anyway. However, as usual, the details from Labour as to what it exactly it will commit to in terms of austerity cuts – and critically where – is ambiguous, and it is particularly confusing that Ed Miliband, while appearing to support austerity in the Conference Hall, is simultaneously willing to go on an anti-austerity march soon.
There are noteable absences in themes, such as the green economy or Europe, and even some burning issues are not tackled at all, such as disability. Ed Miliband concludes that ‘one nation’ is a way of making difficult decisions, including ‘compassion and support for those who cannot work, particularly the disabled citizens of our country’. Miliband has thus far avoided the confusion, in much the same way that Byrne has, that the disability living allowance is not an employment benefit, and this myth must be busted by Miliband soon. Disability campaigners therefore, fundamentally, have every right to be skeptical of the ‘one nation’ narrative, having been sidelined as ‘benefit scrounging scum’ (by some) for far too long. The incompetence narrative is convincing, particularly on the eve of the disaster of the West Country Train fiasco: “”Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope, miserable shower?”
The clever aspect about ‘One Nation’ is that it appears to be quite a politically framed left-agenda, but sugarcoated in centrist packaging. For example, “there will be tough settlements for the public sector” might send alarm bells ringing for the Unions, but introducing a 50p tax rate for millionaires might offer some balance. Notwithstanding, Maurice Glasman has been eager to propose how collective workers may be beneficiaries of the new ‘One Nation’ project. The usual criticism is that Labour never introduced a 50p tax rate until the very end, and even then it was finally implemented after the Conservatives had come into power. So, if “those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest burden”, before Miliband then criticises Murdoch explicitly, is this genuinely the talk of “one nation”? There are obvious possible contradictions within the text: for example Scottish members cheering on “Team GB” in the Olympics, whereas one of the greatest triumphs of New Labour had been cited as devolution. There are not only contradictions within the text of the speech, but of Labour with its past. There may be a sense that it is better that ‘the sinner does finally repenteth’, and indeed the move towards youth apprenticeships (and youth employment) may be a practical solution as the antithesis to New Labour wishing to send more and more people to University. It is indeed promising that Ed Miliband even proposes that contracts will only be awarded to those private sector companies which implement apprenticeships, but it is somewhat surprising that Miliband does not state explicitly ‘the minimum wage’ as part of the solution for the dodgy employment activities of some multi-national companies.
It is further uncertain whether Ed Miliband’s description of the core values of the NHS as “competition, care and collaboration” was a Freudian slip; when I later attended the Andy Burnham interview with Caroline Crampton of the New Statesman, people I spoke to in the audience queried the inclusion of the word “competition”. It is likely that Miliband did not in fact mean “competition” at all, as he then graphically explains why competition had failed in the privatised utility companies. Indeed, Conference started off with the report that Labour would not be able to reverse the Health and Social Care Act, but later statements from Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband and Jamie Reed later confirmed that the Health and Social Care Act would be repealed, if Labour came into power. Labour still appears to endorse (in some form) GP commissioning and NHS Foundation Trusts, and was indeed responsible for introducing them, but Andy Burnham’s promise to change the narrative, in ‘getting rid of the market’, is still not entirely convincing with existing structures still in place in 2015. Whilst it is true that the Conservatives went much further and faster than the Labour administration had, many feel that the ‘purchaser-provider’ split is still very much at the heart of the problems in the NHS. A truly socialist NHS might get rid of this split? A very good thing that Ed Miliband did to highlight the lack of inclusion was to state that the medical Royal Colleges had not been involved in the dialogue over the NHS reforms, which definitely supports his “one nation” narrative.
Labour has a lot of time on its side, and we do not know how much further the economy will regress between now and then. This certainly gives Jon Cruddas and his colleagues enough time to work out details about how Labour can build on the ‘one nation theme’. Miliband has indeed experienced a ‘bounce’ in the polls, and previous criticisms of Ed’s leadership have for now been muted. The speech had a clear structure and a clear theme, and was genuinely extremely well received by many Labour members; but the danger is that Labour is preaching to the converted, and overestimating its popularity. However, the distinct possibility has now emerged that David Cameron might be in fact be an ‘inglorious leader’ of a one-term government, and Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet have now suddenly found themselves “back in the race”. This can only be a good thing for democracy.
The problem is brilliantly illustrated by Gary Baker ((c) of Gary Baker therefore) in Tribune in this incredible cartoon!
