Home » Posts tagged 'political process'
Tag Archives: political process
Ed Balls 'trending' doesn't mean Keynesian policies are suddenly popular
from one of the Ed Balls spoof Twitter accounts today.
There are reasons, of course, why people or things tend to trend on Twitter. In my experience, never having read an official study on this, this tends to be when people die, or are reported to die. Or else, something a bit defamatory-worthy has occurred, and people are ‘intrigued’. Or else, something very minor has happened on BBC Question Time, BBC Any Questions, BBC Any Answers, Britain’s Got Talent, or the X Factor. It is nonetheless interesting watching the phenomenon of people jumping on bandwagons, and a sense of collective excitement, such as when Barack Obama was re-elected. Or else, there is a sense of genuine shock at sudden news, such as death of Baroness Thatcher.
There can be a temptation for all of us to read too much into things we observe in the social media. Hundreds of photoshopped images about George Osborne or Iain Duncan-Smith do not cause a change in direction of travel over the economy or universal credit. Why then do people devote so much time to doing them, as well as posting pictures of cute kittens? Why do people also put in so much time and emotional into having passionate debates on Twitter with well-known journalists? There is an element of narcissism which pervades all our society, where we often do things not for the benefit for anyone apart from ourselves. However, this culture is also pervasive in the politicians who seek us democratically. Many people as they become older become jaded about what politics actually achieves, and, whilst they find the topics themselves actually quite interesting, find the actual political process quite rank and stifling.
Today was “Ed Balls Day”. Ed Balls, it is reputed, accidentally tweeted his own name, leading to thousands of people re-tweeting it. It has become a viral meme, and the subject of an affectionate joke. What does this do for Ed Balls’ popularity? Not much, of course, in that most people have either heard of him as someone who helped to wreck the economy under Gordon Brown, or a brilliant Keynesian economist who trained at Oxford and Harvard, or somewhere in between. Have people used seeing the Ed Balls tweet to seek to discover what the Labour economic policy is or isn’t? No. Granted, there are going to be people who have re-tweeted Ed Balls’ name not because they love him, but because they loathe him.
All of this feeds into the apparent paranoia of politicians who feel that politics has become irrelevant. Seeking out the reasons for the millions of people not bothering to vote has become almost obsessional. Already, the post mortems have begun about why the section 75 NHS regulations vote was lost in the House of Lords. Various theories abound ranging from the relative success of the sales patter of Baroness Williams and Lord Clement-Jones, the fact that elderly Labour peers could not find suitable accommodation in London that night, or an insufficient number of Crossbench peers were unconvinced to vote against the Regulations. And so it could go on, but the issue remains why do people not bother voting. I have also noticed a trend where people find not only politicians boring, but the generally tribalist partisan nature of debate. The legislative process, like the judicial one, is adversarial, and is therefore based on competition not collaboration. The end result is that people end up being hostile to each other, exaggerating their differences, but not drawing attention to the similarities. This, of course, leads to a very distorted manner of taking policy further. For example, the Labour Party have amplified policy differences in procurement to the point of arguing that the privatisation rollercoaster has accelerated, but it is of course Labour which introduced NHS Foundation Trusts (which some believe are the ultimate ‘units’ for a privatised secondary care system) and the previous procurement regulations in the form of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. Supposedly, the Conservatives are ‘building on’ the legacy of New Labour in “free schools”, and much to the embarrassment of Labour, Baroness Thatcher is reputed to have said that her greatest legacy was Tony Blair or New Labour. The Conservatives have attacked the attack on the Bedroom Tax (or “Spare Room Subsidy”) by arguing that Labour introduced something similar for the private sector, and now this idea is being extended to social housing, despite being a socially divisive policy and incapable of generating much revenue.
So the idea of Ed Balls ‘trending’ is of course neither here nor there, and utterly irrelevant to the political discourse today. It doesn’t make Ed Balls any more popular, and doesn’t get round the popular anti-Keynesian attack of ‘How can the solution to borrowing be yet more borrowing?” That meme, while not viral, has been very successful in conveying a popular idea held by some that a Keynesian solution to an economy recovery is to pour fuel on the fire, or to have the ‘hair of the dog’ while suffering from a hangover due to the night before. However, it is incredibly hard to think of a punchy meme in reply to that line of attack which has been successful in the USA today. Another popular meme is, “Why would you hand the keys of the car back to the people who crashed it in the first place?” A reasonable answer to this would be to identify who actually crashed the car – was it the bankers/banks or the State, and were the problems due to the crash per se or due to ‘lack of regulation’ in the lead up to the crash? Nonetheless, both memes focus the mind on the more negative aspects of Labour’s tenure in government, and the public seem to be generally unpersuadable on the economy. The Labour Party, likewise, feel that they are still the party of the NHS, despite the well documented problems in Mid Staffs, though there is a genuine debate about the extent of morbidity and mortality even after two voluminous reports.
Many in all parties feel of course let down by the media, and it might appear that all parties feel equally let down. For example, most recently, some people feel that the coverage of the NHS reforms has been poor, and the media are hopeless at explaining how we have come to have just escaped a ‘triple dip’ recession when the economy was in fact recovering in May 2010. Whether you buy into the idea that ‘the economy is healing’, or this Government would like ‘to make work pay’, it is crystal clear that, whatever the nature of debate (whether it is Afghanistan or welfare), people have a markedly varying understanding of the issues – but have an equal say in the democratic process. Ed Miliband always spoke of ‘building a movement’ in the Labour Party, and by this it means that he would like to capture a sense of national pride and trust in the politics of Britain. He feels that ‘One Nation’ is the best way to do this, and the results from his detailed policy discussions are yet to emerge into the sunlight. When I used to ask my late father to cheer up, he used to say, “What do you expect me to do, Shibley? Dance?” This is in a sense the main problem faced by Labour today, one of expectation management. The discussions of the ‘legacy’ of Baroness Thatcher were at times as finely focused on the purported successes of turning Britain around ‘from a basketcase’ to the social and economic distress (illustrated by the damage done to local communities), pursuant to the closure of coalmines in Easington. People are now muttering again, “I am to be honest very disillusioned with Labour, but this current Government are terrible”. Part of this disconnect with Labour is that people simply don’t trust them to do what they say on certain key issues, such as repealing the Bedroom Tax, or repealing the Health and Social Care Act (2012). And to be blunt, Labour’s “got previous” on this. As a result of the general election in 1997, Labour did not abolish the market in the NHS as they had promised. And yet, Labour does have a reasonably loyal ‘fan base’, and people who genuinely like Ed Miliband as a person. Miliband has always been mindful of being the guy who ‘promised too much but delivered too little’, but it will exasperate even his loyal followers if he turns out to be the guy who in fact ‘promised too little and delivered also very little.’ Ed Miliband can always play the ‘we don’t know how the economy will be in two years’ time’, and get his shadow cabinet to argue that making impossible promises would be reckless, but in the meantime Ed Miliband needs a steady trickle of bits of evidence suggesting that he is heading in the right ‘direction of travel’. For example, the idea of incentivising businesses to implement ‘the living wage’, in a socially inclusive policy which is not overtly ‘tax and spend’, is a useful one, and one which Miliband can legitimately campaign on.
It is hard for Labour members to tell why members of the public dislike them so much, but this is of course the challenge for Labour in the next two years. In the meantime, the challenge is to work out how many people who vote for Labour in the local council elections are doing so, not only because they are protesting against this government, but also find the offering of Labour feasible. These local elections are a timely reminder of how barmy UKIP actually might be, in promising more austere cuts than currently being offered, or what actually differentiates the Liberal Democrats from Labour in a meaningful way. The social media, it can be argued, is a great way for people to write on and discuss the issues that concern them. Without the social media, a meaningful discussion (away from the BBC) about the section 75 NHS regulations would have been impossible. However, as Baroness Williams provided in her speech last week, Twitter can easily be discredited through referring to the wealth of misinformation ‘out there’. From my own personal experience, I feel I can tell what the reaction will be from Labour members towards Baroness Williams, on issues pertaining to the NHS, before she has opened her mouth. Whilst the Ed Balls meme might be equally divorced from real debate, and, whilst it has become a popular past-time to criticise ‘armchair activists’, the role of technology in political movements cannot be ignored. Used responsibly, it can override some of the cynicism we all share, as long as a small minority of bloggers do not persuade themselves they are speaking on behalf of all of us. And possibly the “Ed Balls meme” reminds us of one very important thing relevant to all of us: we should be less obsessed about our image (but not in an irresponsible way), and should from time-to-time take ourselves less seriously.
The 'One nation' of Ed Miliband is essentially about rebuilding the economy, rebuilding society and rebuilding politics
There are a number of overly-complicated accounts of what ‘One nation’, in its latest reincarnation, is about. One interpretation of ‘One nation’ is that it is literally that; scottish citizens can feel proud that ‘Team GB’ has won another Olympic medal, an example which Ed Miliband actually gave in his conference speech. The general consensus is that the speech was very well delivered, but lacking in firm policy. This is clearly unfair as a number of examples were given in that speech given last Tuesday, and Labour is currently undergoing a detailed, complicated, policy review, being led by Jon Cruddas. Describing the next steps in Labour’s policy review, Ed Miliband has said it would focus on three themes: rebuilding the economy, rebuilding society and rebuilding politics. Jon Cruddas has indeed previously provided that, “For me, politics is more about emotion than programme; more groups, community and association- imagined as well as real- rather than theoretical or scientific.” The significance of this is not to be underestimated, as the three planks of policy review, namely economics, society and political process, if executed correctly, would be more than sufficient to rebuild ‘One Nation Labour’. What is clear is that ‘One Nation Labour’ is not a slick re-branding exercise; it could provide a natural break from the neoclassical or neoliberal approach taken by New Labour, and it is clear that Ed Miliband wishes to make it a sustainable political ideology for the party which he leads.
The economy
Peter Kellner argues that Labour needs a new doctrine of equality.
Kellner argues that,
“If Britain is to remain a part of the global economy, in which trade and investment ignore national boundaries, it will struggle to fight the forces that are driving low incomes further down, and high incomes further up. Symbolically, we can and should clamp down on the worst excesses, such as bankers’ undeserved bonuses; and more could be done to banish poverty by, for example, raising the minimum wage and enforcing it properly. But these policies will make only a slight difference to the normal measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient.”
There have been countless descriptions of why the deficit exploded in the global financial crisis of 2008/9. For example Nick Thornsby describes that,
“Whatever Ed Miliband’s claims, the Labour party clearly have to take a significant share of the responsibility. Firstly because the government was spending more that it was taking in before the recession, clearly putting the UK in an unusually bad position (by international standards) when the recession began. And secondly – and more significantly – because they assumed they had done away with the business cycle – they believed they had “abolished boom and bust” – when actually the truth was that Britain was living through an enormous boom, and consequently underwent an enormous bust in 2007.”
Peter Kellner has further argued that,
“Labour has less to worry about on that front (though other YouGov data suggest that the party is vulnerable to the charge that it is too soft on illegal immigrants and welfare claimants). On the other hand, it can’t shake off the charge that it messed up the economy when in office; but there’s not much it can do about that now. What Ed Miliband does need to do is persuade voters that he heads a competent team that is in touch with their own supporters, that Labour has learned from its failures in office, and that he, personally, has the backbone as well as strength of purpose to take the tough decisions that will enable it to govern Britain effectively.”
Ed Miliband has some economic priorities for this.
The Guardian noticeably gave its support for Ed Miliband in his approach to banking regulation. Ed Miliband does not feel that the Coalition has gone far enough in implementing the recommendations by Sir John Vickers, and interestingly the Guardian editorial uses an experience from across the Atlantic to support its argument:
“… , Congress has failed to put in place a coherent set of rules to offset the eye-watering amount of money the Obama administration pumped into the banks, leaving the US with much the same arrangements as before the Lehman Brothers crash. Banks, awash with cheap funds, lend to the same people under the same rules and pay the same bonuses to their executives. Senators Dodd and Frank, who put their name to the new banking regulations, have sadly found their legislation lobbied to death, increasing the danger of another crash in a few years. Miliband is right to say the same is happening in the UK.”
Sustainability is critically another key factor. In law, there is a duty of directors to promote short-term profitability, as judged by the shareholder dividend, and sometimes corporates can prioritise this above business ethics. For example, it is said that it was many years before RH Tawney defined socialism in terms of its objective of resistance to the market and its constraints to private profit. He had identified two approaches: ethical and economic. The ‘responsible capitalism’ narrative, firmly footed in the ‘strategy and society’ work of Prof Michael Porter from Harvard concerning how corporates can be good citizens like everyone else, was of course famously introduced by Miliband in his 2011 conference speech in Liverpool. There has always been disquiet about why corporate citizens should voluntarily wish to embrace good citizenship, but the recent LIBOR scandal has demonstrated how potentially the City could lose its competitive advantage by not being a safe place to do business.
I spoke to an expert in wealth management at a Fabian Society event last week and he echoed what a fellow panel member from Which? suggested – that corporates, including banks, could publish transparently hard data on its business activities, such that customers could make an informed choice as to whether to transact with them (this is otherwise known as the “differentiation” strategy). Miliband interestingly highlights that it could be possible to legislate for this: “You see businesses tell me that the pressure for the fast buck from City investors means they just can’t take the long view. They want to plan one year, two years, ten years ahead but they have to publish their accounts in Britain every 3 months. In line with the wishes of the best of British business, we will end that rule so companies in Britain can take the long term productive view for our country.” Also notably, Ed Miliband has also started a debate about immigration within Europe, and the effect particularly that the behaviour of some some multinational companies and recruitment firms in employing workers with poor standards, for example: “So the next Labour government will crack down on employers who don’t pay the minimum wage. We will stop recruitment agencies just saying they are only going to hire people from overseas. And we will end the shady practices, in the construction industry and elsewhere, of gang-masters. So we need a system of immigration that works for the whole country and not just for some.”
The society
Welfare for many in Labour will be of concern; disabled citizens are irritated that their living allowances have been mixed up with the “lazy benefit scrounger” rhetoric, particularly as disability living allowance is not an employment allowance. Many have felt indeed that welfare might be the next “big” issue, closely after the NHS and the economy, particularly after the handling of work capability assessments by ATOS.
The NHS is often cited as a “national treasure”, but certainly an institution which is well cherished amongst the vast majority of members of the British Public. In relation to this, it is indeed interesting that Jon Cruddas, when talking about institutions in general, says, “… socialism is about the creation of institutions that allow us to self realise, to flourish. Vaclav Havel once said that we ‘ are capable of love, friendship, solidarity, sympathy and tolerance…:we must set these fundamental dimensions of our humanity free from their ‘private’ exile and accept them as the only genuine point of meaningful human community’.” It is indeed particularly noteworthy that Ed Miliband wishes to repeal the Health and Social Care Act (2012), and to eliminate competition from the NHS. While it appears that Ed Miliband will keep NHS Foundation Trusts and commissioning in some form (possibly through retention of the clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board), Miliband appears to signalling that activities in the NHS will not be caught by the competitive legal definition of the word “undertaking” in domestic and European law, and Labour will return to a NHS built on traditional values as provided in the speech: “Not values of markets, money and exchange but values of compassion, care and co-operation.” This is fundamental, as it appears that Miliband and Burnham would be prepared to legislate for the NHS, asking existing structures to do different things, to avoid another costly reorganisation of the NHS which could potentially cost billions, at a time when England is struggling to meet the efficiency demands of the Nicholson challenge anyway.
Ed Miliband admits that the focus on universities was incorrect, in that 50% of individuals were failed by an academic drive which put little value in vocational qualifications. Andrew Adonis in “Education, Education, Education” has certainly started the ball rolling, and the growth of a skills-based economy (and indeed the Technical E-Bacc which Adonis himself is an architect of), and the idea that the private sector would have a psychological and social contract with the state is indeed a concrete policy proposal. Labour latterly has tried not to use the term “industrial policy” of late, but the issue that Ed Miliband does not see a distinction between private and public sector is a useful one in framing the future policy. No vested interest will be overly powerful in Miliband’s one nation; whilst Ed Miliband explicitly refers to bankers (and he has said that he will work closely with anyone wishing to introduce a ‘mansion tax’), Miliband is mindful that members of the Unions only constitute 40% of Labour’s funding, and that Conference last year agreed to implement a different means of electing its Leader. Miliband will be fully aware, however, that many members of the public do not feel that the pay of the “super-rich” is fair, and indeed this is a concern shared by the Chartered Institute of Management Consultants for both private and public sector. A criticism of the ‘One Nation’ speech is that it is something which potentially could be attractive to workers, if there were an emphasis on building affiliations of working class individuals in communities consistent with Maurice Glasman’s goal for Blue Labour, but New Labour and Progress (amongst others) will be keen to ensure that ‘One Nation Labour’ is also attractive to floating voters who might otherwise not vote for Labour. A number of Union leaders broadly welcomed the speech, ranging from full-on acceptance to caution saying that it was lacking in policy. While Vernon Bogdanor in the New Statesman in an article entitled “Half echoes of the past” this week has warned that Labour should perhaps be keen to keep a safe distance from Blue Labour, it is likely that Jon Cruddas will not wish to see any watering down of socialism and working class values in the policy review, whatever the recent history of the Labour Party.
The political process.
There is of course a concern that ‘for one nation’ to succeed, it has to do so on a number of levels. Harriet Harman in Progress Online described it as, ” With the Tories’ collapse in Scotland, Wales and much of the north, and Labour making progress again in the south, we are now the only ‘one-nation party’.” This is reflected in Ed Miliband’s observation that, “So we must be a One Nation party to become a One Nation government, to build a One Nation Britain. “Currently, in the three southern regions, where Labour have 24 target seats, Labour have only 10 Labour MPs and far fewer councillors. Here, the Fabian policy document, “Southern discomfort again” might provide some useful clues in particular about how Labour might form new connections with potential voters:
“Any party seeking to recover from electoral defeat has to develop a coherent analysis of why it lost, and what ought to be done to put it right. For a decade after New Labour’s 1997 election triumph, the Conservative Party refused to listen to voters and, as a consequence, suffered its worst sequence of election defeats since 1832. In the 1950s and the 1980s Labour made a similar mistake which condemned it to long periods out of power. If the party is to escape the impotence of opposition, it will need to shape a political strategy that will enable it to win next time.”
The critical aspect about all of this, thankfully, is that Labour has got time on its side. There is no point in Labour publishing its policies way in advance of 2015, particularly since the economic performance of the UK is declining by the second (as illustrated in the latest Labour initiative, “the borrowing counter”). Labour has said it regrettably that it would not be able to reverse many of the cuts, such as the closure of the law centres, or certain NHS institutions being abolished (e.g. PCTs or SHAs), but the approach taken by Ed Miliband indeed is a practical one for the time-being. Ed Miliband’s leadership is now a curious mixture of ‘charismatic leadership’ and ‘crisis leadership'; ‘charismatic’ in that Ed Miliband pulled off a performance which meant that people have not written him off, and seem prepared to give him and Labour a chance, despite Labour’s potential mistakes, because the Coalition’s performance has been so poor. If a week is a long time in politics, two to three years constitute an ever longer period.
The 'One nation' of Ed Miliband is essentially about rebuilding the economy, rebuilding society and rebuilding politics
There are a number of overly-complicated accounts of what ‘One nation’, in its latest reincarnation, is about. One interpretation of ‘One nation’ is that it is literally that; scottish citizens can feel proud that ‘Team GB’ has won another Olympic medal, an example which Ed Miliband actually gave in his conference speech. The general consensus is that the speech was very well delivered, but lacking in firm policy. This is clearly unfair as a number of examples were given in that speech given last Tuesday, and Labour is currently undergoing a detailed, complicated, policy review, being led by Jon Cruddas. Describing the next steps in Labour’s policy review, Ed Miliband has said it would focus on three themes: rebuilding the economy, rebuilding society and rebuilding politics. Jon Cruddas has indeed previously provided that, “For me, politics is more about emotion than programme; more groups, community and association- imagined as well as real- rather than theoretical or scientific.” The significance of this is not to be underestimated, as the three planks of policy review, namely economics, society and political process, if executed correctly, would be more than sufficient to rebuild ‘One Nation Labour’. What is clear is that ‘One Nation Labour’ is not a slick re-branding exercise; it could provide a natural break from the neoclassical or neoliberal approach taken by New Labour, and it is clear that Ed Miliband wishes to make it a sustainable political ideology for the party which he leads.
The economy
Peter Kellner argues that Labour needs a new doctrine of equality.
Kellner argues that,
“If Britain is to remain a part of the global economy, in which trade and investment ignore national boundaries, it will struggle to fight the forces that are driving low incomes further down, and high incomes further up. Symbolically, we can and should clamp down on the worst excesses, such as bankers’ undeserved bonuses; and more could be done to banish poverty by, for example, raising the minimum wage and enforcing it properly. But these policies will make only a slight difference to the normal measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient.”
There have been countless descriptions of why the deficit exploded in the global financial crisis of 2008/9. For example Nick Thornsby describes that,
“Whatever Ed Miliband’s claims, the Labour party clearly have to take a significant share of the responsibility. Firstly because the government was spending more that it was taking in before the recession, clearly putting the UK in an unusually bad position (by international standards) when the recession began. And secondly – and more significantly – because they assumed they had done away with the business cycle – they believed they had “abolished boom and bust” – when actually the truth was that Britain was living through an enormous boom, and consequently underwent an enormous bust in 2007.”
Peter Kellner has further argued that,
“Labour has less to worry about on that front (though other YouGov data suggest that the party is vulnerable to the charge that it is too soft on illegal immigrants and welfare claimants). On the other hand, it can’t shake off the charge that it messed up the economy when in office; but there’s not much it can do about that now. What Ed Miliband does need to do is persuade voters that he heads a competent team that is in touch with their own supporters, that Labour has learned from its failures in office, and that he, personally, has the backbone as well as strength of purpose to take the tough decisions that will enable it to govern Britain effectively.”
Ed Miliband has some economic priorities for this.
The Guardian noticeably gave its support for Ed Miliband in his approach to banking regulation. Ed Miliband does not feel that the Coalition has gone far enough in implementing the recommendations by Sir John Vickers, and interestingly the Guardian editorial uses an experience from across the Atlantic to support its argument:
“… , Congress has failed to put in place a coherent set of rules to offset the eye-watering amount of money the Obama administration pumped into the banks, leaving the US with much the same arrangements as before the Lehman Brothers crash. Banks, awash with cheap funds, lend to the same people under the same rules and pay the same bonuses to their executives. Senators Dodd and Frank, who put their name to the new banking regulations, have sadly found their legislation lobbied to death, increasing the danger of another crash in a few years. Miliband is right to say the same is happening in the UK.”
Sustainability is critically another key factor. In law, there is a duty of directors to promote short-term profitability, as judged by the shareholder dividend, and sometimes corporates can prioritise this above business ethics. For example, it is said that it was many years before RH Tawney defined socialism in terms of its objective of resistance to the market and its constraints to private profit. He had identified two approaches: ethical and economic. The ‘responsible capitalism’ narrative, firmly footed in the ‘strategy and society’ work of Prof Michael Porter from Harvard concerning how corporates can be good citizens like everyone else, was of course famously introduced by Miliband in his 2011 conference speech in Liverpool. There has always been disquiet about why corporate citizens should voluntarily wish to embrace good citizenship, but the recent LIBOR scandal has demonstrated how potentially the City could lose its competitive advantage by not being a safe place to do business.
I spoke to an expert in wealth management at a Fabian Society event last week and he echoed what a fellow panel member from Which? suggested – that corporates, including banks, could publish transparently hard data on its business activities, such that customers could make an informed choice as to whether to transact with them (this is otherwise known as the “differentiation” strategy). Miliband interestingly highlights that it could be possible to legislate for this: “You see businesses tell me that the pressure for the fast buck from City investors means they just can’t take the long view. They want to plan one year, two years, ten years ahead but they have to publish their accounts in Britain every 3 months. In line with the wishes of the best of British business, we will end that rule so companies in Britain can take the long term productive view for our country.” Also notably, Ed Miliband has also started a debate about immigration within Europe, and the effect particularly that the behaviour of some some multinational companies and recruitment firms in employing workers with poor standards, for example: “So the next Labour government will crack down on employers who don’t pay the minimum wage. We will stop recruitment agencies just saying they are only going to hire people from overseas. And we will end the shady practices, in the construction industry and elsewhere, of gang-masters. So we need a system of immigration that works for the whole country and not just for some.”
The society
Welfare for many in Labour will be of concern; disabled citizens are irritated that their living allowances have been mixed up with the “lazy benefit scrounger” rhetoric, particularly as disability living allowance is not an employment allowance. Many have felt indeed that welfare might be the next “big” issue, closely after the NHS and the economy, particularly after the handling of work capability assessments by ATOS.
The NHS is often cited as a “national treasure”, but certainly an institution which is well cherished amongst the vast majority of members of the British Public. In relation to this, it is indeed interesting that Jon Cruddas, when talking about institutions in general, says, “… socialism is about the creation of institutions that allow us to self realise, to flourish. Vaclav Havel once said that we ‘ are capable of love, friendship, solidarity, sympathy and tolerance…:we must set these fundamental dimensions of our humanity free from their ‘private’ exile and accept them as the only genuine point of meaningful human community’.” It is indeed particularly noteworthy that Ed Miliband wishes to repeal the Health and Social Care Act (2012), and to eliminate competition from the NHS. While it appears that Ed Miliband will keep NHS Foundation Trusts and commissioning in some form (possibly through retention of the clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board), Miliband appears to signalling that activities in the NHS will not be caught by the competitive legal definition of the word “undertaking” in domestic and European law, and Labour will return to a NHS built on traditional values as provided in the speech: “Not values of markets, money and exchange but values of compassion, care and co-operation.” This is fundamental, as it appears that Miliband and Burnham would be prepared to legislate for the NHS, asking existing structures to do different things, to avoid another costly reorganisation of the NHS which could potentially cost billions, at a time when England is struggling to meet the efficiency demands of the Nicholson challenge anyway.
Ed Miliband admits that the focus on universities was incorrect, in that 50% of individuals were failed by an academic drive which put little value in vocational qualifications. Andrew Adonis in “Education, Education, Education” has certainly started the ball rolling, and the growth of a skills-based economy (and indeed the Technical E-Bacc which Adonis himself is an architect of), and the idea that the private sector would have a psychological and social contract with the state is indeed a concrete policy proposal. Labour latterly has tried not to use the term “industrial policy” of late, but the issue that Ed Miliband does not see a distinction between private and public sector is a useful one in framing the future policy. No vested interest will be overly powerful in Miliband’s one nation; whilst Ed Miliband explicitly refers to bankers (and he has said that he will work closely with anyone wishing to introduce a ‘mansion tax’), Miliband is mindful that members of the Unions only constitute 40% of Labour’s funding, and that Conference last year agreed to implement a different means of electing its Leader. Miliband will be fully aware, however, that many members of the public do not feel that the pay of the “super-rich” is fair, and indeed this is a concern shared by the Chartered Institute of Management Consultants for both private and public sector. A criticism of the ‘One Nation’ speech is that it is something which potentially could be attractive to workers, if there were an emphasis on building affiliations of working class individuals in communities consistent with Maurice Glasman’s goal for Blue Labour, but New Labour and Progress (amongst others) will be keen to ensure that ‘One Nation Labour’ is also attractive to floating voters who might otherwise not vote for Labour. A number of Union leaders broadly welcomed the speech, ranging from full-on acceptance to caution saying that it was lacking in policy. While Vernon Bogdanor in the New Statesman in an article entitled “Half echoes of the past” this week has warned that Labour should perhaps be keen to keep a safe distance from Blue Labour, it is likely that Jon Cruddas will not wish to see any watering down of socialism and working class values in the policy review, whatever the recent history of the Labour Party.
The political process.
There is of course a concern that ‘for one nation’ to succeed, it has to do so on a number of levels. Harriet Harman in Progress Online described it as, ” With the Tories’ collapse in Scotland, Wales and much of the north, and Labour making progress again in the south, we are now the only ‘one-nation party’.” This is reflected in Ed Miliband’s observation that, “So we must be a One Nation party to become a One Nation government, to build a One Nation Britain. “Currently, in the three southern regions, where Labour have 24 target seats, Labour have only 10 Labour MPs and far fewer councillors. Here, the Fabian policy document, “Southern discomfort again” might provide some useful clues in particular about how Labour might form new connections with potential voters:
“Any party seeking to recover from electoral defeat has to develop a coherent analysis of why it lost, and what ought to be done to put it right. For a decade after New Labour’s 1997 election triumph, the Conservative Party refused to listen to voters and, as a consequence, suffered its worst sequence of election defeats since 1832. In the 1950s and the 1980s Labour made a similar mistake which condemned it to long periods out of power. If the party is to escape the impotence of opposition, it will need to shape a political strategy that will enable it to win next time.”
The critical aspect about all of this, thankfully, is that Labour has got time on its side. There is no point in Labour publishing its policies way in advance of 2015, particularly since the economic performance of the UK is declining by the second (as illustrated in the latest Labour initiative, “the borrowing counter”). Labour has said it regrettably that it would not be able to reverse many of the cuts, such as the closure of the law centres, or certain NHS institutions being abolished (e.g. PCTs or SHAs), but the approach taken by Ed Miliband indeed is a practical one for the time-being. Ed Miliband’s leadership is now a curious mixture of ‘charismatic leadership’ and ‘crisis leadership'; ‘charismatic’ in that Ed Miliband pulled off a performance which meant that people have not written him off, and seem prepared to give him and Labour a chance, despite Labour’s potential mistakes, because the Coalition’s performance has been so poor. If a week is a long time in politics, two to three years constitute an ever longer period.
